Abortion is generally immoral

The morality of abortion has been a topic of contention on DDO for some time and recently there has been a revived interest, sparked in no small part by the recent addition of two pro-life advocates, Trent Horn[1]and Josh Brahm[2] who have had excellent debates with both Freeman[3] and Grape[4]. It may be ambitious but let us see if KeytarHero and I can provide a debate with a similar level of information, interest and general quality as those four individuals have certainly provided.Now to start let us examine the resolution and OP in a bit more detail to clarify the contentions and burden of proof so as to allow proper argument flowing. From KetarHero :For this debate, I will argue that abortion is generally an immoral act. This clearly establishes that he has accepted responsibility of burden of proof and thus we can expect full justification for all claims. As an side there is also no need to define terms such as abortion and immoral as these are not in need of clarification from the standard dictionary meanings. Now I could take a stance commonly advocated and presented well by Tim[5] and Cody[6] who would be likely to deny the resolution with a claim that there is no such thing as morality and then proceed to develop an argument for moral nihilism and deny the existence of all moral facts. However it is clear that KeytarHero did not have that in mind when he proposed this resolution, and while a valid defense, it is likely more interesting and hopefully enjoyable to instead proceed to ask instead the fundamental question in response to any claim of morality and that is “according to what”.My rebuttal in this debate will thus consider of removing any justification that KetarHero has for the moral framework that he provides and to show that it is either not being presented, applied consistently or is inherently impractical. For example one could justify the claim of immorality similar to Harris by simply making it a definitional truth [7] but this can be trivially refuted by simply noting this is not an objective truth and it can just as easily be a definitional falsehood.To move into the debate main I would open by accepting that the argument from KetarHero is valid meaning that the conclusions (C1 and C2) do follow from the premises (P1, P2 and P3), however I would contend that the argument is not sound because as of yet there is not sufficient justification to accept any of the premises. I will also make a small pause to note that KetarHero takes a page from the debating handbook of William Lane Craig [8] where he outlines a rebuttal to his own arguments at times and then posits defeaters. However this tactic isn’t going to work here, he will be held accountable to fully justify his position not simply defeat rebuttals that he creates for himself.With all of that out of the way let us look at the justification argued for the three premises starting with P1:J1.1) […] every living thing reproduces after its own kindJ1.2) We also have human DNA.Now to refute J1.1 is as simple to note that if you accept that as truth you deny biological evolution. Now as to the truth of biological evolution, that is of course a debate in itself, but it is sufficient here to note that J1.1 simply denies this theory, which is extremely well supported [9] and thus in order for J1.1 to be accepted then quite an argument would have to be made to refute the theory of evolution, this is simply not a practical justification for this debate.In regards to J1.2 that is also fairly trivial to refute as simply consider that I could extra DNA from a cell and put that compound by itself in an appropriate solution. Is that solution a member of humanity? That seems obviously false as it is nothing more than a single chemical compound floating in solution and that could even be artificially created in a lab, see for example the RNA-hypothesis [10]. There is obviously quite a step from being a self-replicating compound to even getting to a proto-cell let alone an organism and further still a person, thus DNA alone cannot be a claim even to life let alone a member of humanity. This is also an example of affirming the consequent [11] because while all members of humanity would have human DNA, simply because something has human DNA would not make it a member of humanity.In regards to P2 and P3, there is no justification for P2 aside fromJ2.1) Humans are inherently valuable.Again here KeytarHero is attempting to force a rebuttal which he can then attack. This is a common debating tactic and as noted is the preferred method of William Lane Craig, noted Christian Apologist. However while common it is not valid as arguments without justification do not need to be refuted as there is nothing to refute. This is a clear example of an attempt to shift the burden of proof.Note if it was as trivial to affirm to assert right to life by noting human life is inherently valuable then would be no debates on the nature of morality either ontological or epistemological as we could proceed from this foundational claim. This argument can just as easily be countered by asserting that all humans have an absolute claim to ownership of their bodies which results in a dead lock between the two claims to rights. However there is no need to even present or develop this argument as a counter because the as noted justification does not support the premise. Even if it were accepted that humans are inherently valuable it does not follow that right to life therefore follows absolutely because this assumes that nothing at all has value as it is only in that case can the argument be made so absolutely.Finally to end, P3 has no justification; it is simply asserted as a foundational truth and can be dismissed just as easily. There are of course many arguments which can be presented to refute this assertion, but again the onus is on KeytarHero to develop a justification for this premise. he can not simply state it as a truth have demand it be refuted or otherwise it has to be accepted as default. Though it is often argued otherwise, the fact remains that “[…] you cannot prove me wrong does not mean I am right” [12]. Again KetarHero clearly has the burden of proof and has to justify any and all claims. It is not my responsibly to provide a rebuttal to his assertions or else they are assumed to be conceded.In closing, the few justifications that KeytarHero has presented have been fully refuted and demands have been made to provide full support for the other premises which have at best very scant argumentative support.[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.debate.org...[3] http://www.debate.org...[4] http://www.debate.org...[5] http://www.debate.org...[6] http://www.debate.org...[7] http://www.samharris.org...[8] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...[9] http://jerrycoyne.uchicago.edu...[10] Gesteland, R.F., Cech, T.R., Atkins, J.F., 2006, The RNA World: the nature of modern RNA suggests a prebiotic RNA, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, United States of America[11] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...[12] http://www.internetlogic.org...