Abortion is generally immoral

Great debate so far. It’s the last round, so I’m going to try to tie things together as well as I can. I’ll rebut my opponent’s arguments, and then rebolster my own. I’m glad she’s agreed to my summary of her argument, since that makes things a lot clearer.My opponent’s argument and abortionMy opponent has argued that procreation is immoral. As you will recall, I showed that this isn’t explicitly relevant to the morality of abortion. She has provided an argument in which she attempts to tie the two together, but I don’t think it works.She’s said that there are two options; aborting and not aborting. I agree, since this is true by the law of excluded middle (1). However, let’s say that my opponent’s argument does succeed, and that not aborting is far more immoral than aborting. This rests upon the hidden premise that when faced with two immoral actions, that the less immoral one is the moral choice. But this is absurd. If we had to choose between killing an old lady, and killing several toddlers, would this mean that the “less immoral” option is suddenly “moral”?I see no reason to accept this.A summary of the anti-natal argumentRecall, my opponent’s argument is as follows: P1: It is immoral to inflict something bad upon someone without their consent.P2: Procreation inflicts something bad (life) upon someone without their consent.C: Procreation is immoral.Now what I’ve disputed is that life is bad. My opponent must show that life is bad in order for this argument to succeed.The fallacy of composition This rebuttal here alone is enough to completely debunk P2 of my opponent’s argument. She argues: “1) Discomfort is bad 2) Anguish (suffering) is a more extreme form of discomfort 3) *Every instant of our lives is filled with suffering 4) These lives are horrendously bad, due to the constant suffering Suffering is bad. Unless you can nullify, then it follows that all our lives are bad.”Now of course I disagree with 3 (I’ll get to that later) but let’s just say that 1-3 is true. 4 simply does not follow. Once again, just because every instant of our lives is “bad” this doesn’t mean that “life” is “bad”. This is an example of the fallacy of composition (2). If I have a bundle of sticks, and I can break each one individually, can I break the entire bundle all together? Probably not. Likewise, even if our lives are filled with agony every second this doesn’t show that our life as a whole is bad, or that “life” in general is a bad thing. It simply does not follow.As stated above, this completely debunks any arguments my opponent has given for the second premise in her argument.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. Once again, it still doesn’t follow. If something causes something bad, does that mean that it is bad in itself? This is similar to Godel’s ontological proof, when he argues that if some property X is a prerequisite for a good property Y, then this property X is good (3). I’m not convinced.X causes YY is badSo X is bad?What reasons to we have to believe this? It seems very possible for something good to cause something bad.DiscomfortI’ll concede, for the sake of debate, that discomfort is “bad.”Discomfort before comfortMy opponent makes the fallacy of denying the antecedent (4). She states:“1) I enjoy driving to work 2) I am not driving to work, at the moment (and I am in discomfort)”But this is fallacious. 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.For example If Queen Elizabeth is an American citizen, then she is a human being.Queen Elizabeth is not an American citizen.So Queen Elizabeth is not a human being.This also debunks her refutation to my counter-argument of comfort being in relation to knowledge of discomfort. I’ll reiterate that.When we are happy, or comfortable, we typically say: “Hey, look how things could be, and how they are.”My opponent must show that the only way we can feel comfort is by saying “Look how things were and how they now are.”Otherwise, we cannot say that we must be in the state of discomfort before feeling comfort, which is what she’s saying.Surprise investmentI’ll just go over this quickly. 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.The serious catastropheMy opponent misunderstands. She wants us to compare the suffering with the pleasure. I’m saying that we should compare the suffering in the world with the love and the good that is done. People self-sacrifice in small ways and in big ways every day. In my view, this overrides suffering in the world. The good, however small, always outweighs the bad. I am stating my opinion, and this refutes my opponent’s stating her opinion.Life is a good thingWell my opponent has failed to show that life is a “bad” thing. I’ve argued, well past my burden, that life is a “good” thing. Let me counter my opponent’s rebuttals to this.Con argues that value is relative in comparison. However, I don’t accept this. While things which are useful may be “valuable” in comparison, this doesn’t mean that everything is valuable in a comparison way. My opponent is mistaken between something which is valuable as a means, and something which is valuable as an end. Yes, for things which are valuable as means, we can say “This is better than that, because it achieves its end better.” But I am arguing that life is valuable in itself. I’m not arguing that life is a means towards something, but rather that life is an ontological good per se.I’ll reiterate my argument, and tweak it a bit.P1 If life were bad in itself then people wouldn’t value it.P2 People do value life.C Life is not bad in itself.I’ve also made a mistake in my math. It’s not 0.14% of people who commit suicide. It’s 0.014%. If “life” were, in itself, a bad thing, then we’d see more than 0.014% of people committing suicide. If life were as bad as my opponent wants us to believe, people wouldn’t care twice about whether or not they have their life.But it’s simply not the case. Life is considered to be the most fundamental and valuable thing, for its own sake.The numbers do not lie.The beginning of lifeThis wasn’t meant to be a prolife argument. This was merely meant to show the scientific fact that a new human organism begins at conception (5).I. The FLO argumentMy opponent simply misunderstands the argument entirely. Whether or not the fetus can feel pain and experience death is completely irrelevant to the FLO argument. I will admit that everything my opponent has said about the biological structure of the fetus is true. But this doesn’t touch the argument at all.She argues: “Killing things that have no welfare state, does no real harm, to the thing killed.”But I’ve shown that it does. It deprives that thing of the valuable future it has.The FLO argument argues that it is immoral to destroy a being with a valuable future like ours. As I’ve argued, this is what makes murder immoral. My opponent hasn’t addressed this, and has dropped it. So it seems there isn’t controversy there. What makes murder wrong is that it snatches away the being’s future. See R1.But abortion obviously does this! A fetus will develop into a human being, and obviously does have a future like ours. The fetus will develop into a person just like you or I, and will have experiences, pursuits, interests, family, friends, etc. I’ve argued that it’s wrong to steal this away from a being, as shown by murder. Thus, it is immoral to destroy a fetus, since it has a future like ours.P1: Any action which absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO) is immoralP2: Abortion absolutely deprives a being of its meaningful future (FLO).C: Abortion is immoral.I’ve defended each and every one of these premises. A new organism exists at conception which has a future like ours (5), and it is immoral to deprive a being of its future.My opponent simply has not shown that one of the premises are false. All she’s done is commit a bare assertion fallacy (6), and has simply stated “a foetus, prior to ~20 weeks, does not have a welfare state (i.e. a capacity to suffer and experience death).” This doesn’t refute the argument at all.So I’ve argued that it’s immoral to destroy a being with a meaningful future like ours. My opponent has just asserted that it’s moral to destroy a being which cannot experience pain or death. In other words, she’s merely “refuted” my arguments by asserting that they are wrong.II. Bodily rights argumentsI’m not sure what my opponent means here. It seems that she agrees that if a person causes another person to be in a state of danger, then that person has a special obligation towards them.III. The reverse violinist argumentI’ve already refuted my opponent’s responses here.ConclusionRemember, the burden of proof is shared. Weigh both Zarroette’s and my arguments when you vote. Vote for whose arguments were stronger than the others.I believe that I’ve rebutted my opponent’s arguments at every single turn. I’ve shown that life isn’t bad, and is in fact good. I’ve also shown that my opponent’s arguments don’t explicitly defend abortion. My opponent has simply misunderstood the FLO argument, and has seemingly dropped all the rest. So we’ve not seen the tremendous amount of proof required to show abortion is moral. Remember, when there is a good chance human life is involved, we ought to tread carefully.Remember that new arguments aren’t allowed in this round.Please vote Pro!==Sources==(1) http://tinyurl.com...(2) http://tinyurl.com...(3) http://tinyurl.com...(4) http://tinyurl.com...(5) http://tinyurl.com...(6) http://tinyurl.com...