Abortion is generally immoral

Fatal weaknesses in my opponent’s arguments versus my winnings arguments Flaw 1: (Basis of the FLO argument) My opponent continues to assert that murder is bad,without qualifying this.Being ‘prima facie’ bad, does not mean that it is bad in reality. Remember that I brought up that millions of sperm are killed in sexual intercourse? This is human life too, isn’t it? What about bugs? Or are they not considered valuable life? There isn’t a logical argument, from my opponent, that gives us a reason to say this – he merely asserts it. This bare assertion prevents the FLO from FLOwing. Logically sound argument: I have argued that murder, in itself, isn’t inherently bad. Rather, it is the welfare state, the capacity for discomfort/suffering, which creates value. My argument sets up the premise, that all sentient creatures agree upon: discomfort/suffering is bad. My opponent conceded that discomfort is bad: “I’ll concede, for the sake of debate, that discomfort is “bad.”” Hence, it follows that: 1) Discomfort is bad 2) Therefore, causing discomfort is bad 3) Killing can cause discomfort (welfare state required) 4) Therefore, killing, in some cases, is immoral THAT’S a reason killing things, sometimes, is immoral. Flaw 2: (from my serious catastrophe argument) My opponent argues that I’m trying to compare suffering to pleasure, rather than any other type of good. This is compete nonsense, and he again, dodges my questions. I have asked him how these realities can be justified. All he says is that, “we should judge lives by the good and love that is done”, without ever addressing my questions. He even argues that, “people self-sacrifice in small ways and in big ways every day”, implying that people battling through discomfort, is a good thing. He finishes with: “I am stating my opinion,” basically admitting that he hasn’t got a counter-argument. Logically sound argument: I have asked my opponent to justify these horrendous events. Since he cannot, he concedes that these are horrendous events, and I argue that PLENTY of discomfort comes from these (in reality, an over-bearing amount). I say that there really isn’t much that can account for these atrocious events, events such as: the Holocaust, Chernobyl meltdown, WWI and WWII (including any war to come in the future), every other war, the Crusades, Ancient living ways (barbaric, primitive), 9/11, any bloody conquerings (Alexander the Great, Muhammad and his Muslims recapturing Mecca) etc. I don’t mean to appeal to emotion, but obviously, these events create an unbridled amount of suffering, and since my opponent failed to give a response, he concedes that events cannot be justified. Flaw 3: My opponent argues that a life filled with suffering is good, because otherwise, it would be a composition fallacy argument. To put it concisely, my opponent’s counter-response is an argument from final consequence. He basically argues that: 1) The opportunity to life is good 2) Suffering is only one component of life, therefore life itself isn’t bad Have a think about this. For example, if you were a muddy, filthy ditch, writhing and screaming in pain, for the rest of your life, would you consider that no bad? My opponent says that life is just fine. This is nonsense; it cannot be believed by a thinking person. Blithely saying that all lives are good, without proving as to why, is illogical. Logically sound argument: I argued that: 1) Suffering is bad (my opponent concedes this) 2) These lives are filled with suffering, and, at best, VERY LITTLE COMFORT (good), because of the suffering involved. Again, comfort is the result of removing a negative (which I argued elsewhere) 3) That these lives are bad, because of all the suffering involved The discomfort/comfort mechanism encompasses everything (suffering/discomfort is one part, the other is comfort). Therefore, I have given a reason that these lives are bad. Flaw 4: (Life is a good thing) If life were so bad, people wouldn’t value it. My opponent then goes on to make the argument that because people aren’t killing themselves, that life must be good. Not only does this appeal to popularity, but it assumes people are capable of valuing their lives objectively. To value things objectively, someone must have knowledge of all the possibilities, in regards to what a life can produce. Logically sound response: I’ve shown that humans value things on a relative basis, rather than an objective one. For example, if someone is living in poor conditions, and has only known them in his/her entire life, then the value judgements are clearly going to be affected by this. There would be no way to know of the finer things a life could achieve, or even the worse things, because the person hasn’t ever known these things. So then, this person’s value of his/her life is not based on reality, rather, only on what known to him/her. Other weaknesses in my opponent’s arguments/ General addressing My opponent’s argument and abortion “This rests upon the hidden premise that when faced with two immoral actions, that the less immoral one is the moral choice.” No, I’ve proven abortion to be moral, in a lot of circumstances (i.e. generally), which is enough to win me the debate. “My opponent agrees that procreation doesn’t directly cause suffering, and instead causes life. She thinks that life always causes suffering, (I disagree) but let’s just say that it does.” He conceded, for this section, as a hypothetical, that every moment of these lives involve suffering. I NEVER used this concession, outside of this section. “What reasons to we have to believe this? It seems very possible for something good to cause something bad.” You haven’t affirmed why it is good in the first place; you are begging the question. I, on the other hand, have shown why life is bad, if the case is continual suffering. Discomfort before comfort “If I am driving to work, I am happy. I am not driving to work. Therefore, I am not happy? This has the form: If p then q. Not p. So not q.” My opponent fails to remember that this is under the dichotomy of discomfort and comfort – there are only two options. My opponent then begins to go through examples, wherein there are more than two options. My opponent’s analogies fail, in this regard. The ‘p’ and ‘q’ line of reasoning works when there are only two options, which is the case with my argument. Surprise investment “If something is a good thing for someone, and they are unable at the moment to choose for themselves, there isn’t necessarily anything immoral with choosing it for them. Life, as I argue, is a good thing. So to bestow it upon someone is a gift.” My opponent has begged the question, arguing that because life is a good thing, my analogy is flawed. This debate involves whether life is a good thing, and then making a moral judgement, based on the answer. My opponent has no right to assume that the opportunity to life is a good thing, without first arguing as to why. Life is a good thing “While things which are useful may be “valuable” in comparison, this doesn’t mean that everything is valuable in a comparison way.” How else do humans determine value? Do we magically have in our minds what is to be considered valuable? No? Do we intuitively understand, without ever looking at the object, that a rifle is quite efficient at killing people? No? Then how do we determine this? Oh, that’s right, by comparing it to other objects, and seeing that the rifle is a very efficient means to an ends. THAT is how humans determine value, not through some magical objective way, like my opponent hints at. “But I am arguing that life is valuable in itself.” No, you assume this to be true, then you made the FLO argument. You haven’t proven that it is valuable. The beginning of life Scientific fact, relative to your arbitrary delineations? Is sperm not life? The link doesn’t even work. I. The FLO argument “But I’ve shown that it does. It deprives that thing of the valuable future it has.” You haven’t proven the future life to be valuable. This whole argument begs the question, because it assumes that life will be valuable, for no reason. “The FLO argument argues that it is immoral to destroy a being with a valuable future like ours.” Again, you assume that life is valuable, therefore the future is valuable. “A fetus will develop into a human being, and obviously does have a future like ours.” Yeah, and I’ve argued that the future, most likely, will be bad, due to our defunct psychology. We’re doing these foetuses a favour by aborting them before they’re able to experience suffering -- that’s my argument. II. Bodily rights arguments The foetus and woman are clearly separate entities, and that merely being conjoined does not excuse the woman of duty of care towards the foetus. That’s what my opponent essentially argues here, and I agree with it (after the welfare state is created). III. The reverse violinist argument Again, there’s no consent to conception/birth; life (in general) is basically about more discomfort than comfort and nothing of real value is lost/harmed, if the foetus is aborted before 20 weeks. Concluding comments Life isn’t, by itself, automatically good, In fact, when we look at (everyone’s) life, overall, through a somewhat objective lens, we can see that it is more good than bad. I have determined this through a logical process, accounting for the real values, so as to be moral. Discomfort and suffering, as my opponent conceded, are bad. It is insanity to assume that the opportunity to life is always inherently good, when horrendous suffering has occurred. No one wants to suffer; no one wants to live in discomfort. Why put someone through it? Why bring someone into this world, if you know all of this? I thank zmikecuber for this debate; I hope it’s been productive, for you. I thank you too, for reading whatever you’ve read. Please, don’t be irked by the ghastly nature of my arguments. Have a good think about what I said, before voting :)