Abortion

More Logical Inconsistencies Cloaked as Acceptable Pre-debate Stipulations: First, I would like to point out an additional catastrophic philosophical mistake made by Con to start this debate, built within the pre-debate stipulations themselves: There are no "proofs" regarding moral dilemmas. Discourse within philosophy seriously concerns itself with ethics and morality. There are no clear defined "moral proofs" that can be rendered for moral concerns. This is the keynote characteristic of irony within Moral philosophy -- precisely because -- there are no exact ways to procure and decipher actual "proofs" concerning metaphysical, abstract, and value judgments. "The burden of proof" is then not really applicable, or even necessary, in order to debate the morality of our topic, nor should an undue burden be placed on either side whatsoever. Actions are not automatically considered immoral unless proven to be moral; that's not how it works at all. Moreover, abortion is dealing with physical systems -- with value judgments (which is what we are debating). Whether we agree or disagree, abortion is still physical. The aspects of the "moral" or "ethical" for this debate cannot have proofs, thus, cannot be requisite. The philosopher David Hume argued that moral judgments are a matter of taste. Even Immanuel Kant's moral judgments (a priori) are a function of reason, which require specific universal examples because moral proofs do not exist.. Specific examples are required to make distinctions (otherwise the debate makes no sense, least I point out Con has broken their own stipulated rules with the 'exception to save the mother' being a specific example and case of abortion). So Con asked for something to be furnished that doesn't exist (proofs for moral judgments) and stipulations to be followed that were illogical. Though the debate stipulations were set-up with much thought, the specific details of the stipulations doomed any real serious conversation within the debate from the start (which the Pro tried to point out before hand, explaining how they are unreasonable). The Con in this debate "over-stipulated" incorrectly to a fault. For these reasons, the Pro in this debate has immediately taken to the task of establishing this, rebutting, and pointing out these inconsistencies. As a solution I offer the Pro and the Con equally share the "burden of proof" or eradicate the inconsistent notion altogether. If Con disagrees, then I will have to ask Con equally for "proof" that abortion is, on balance, immoral (which makes no sense considering the above mentioned). Pro's Case for the Motion: "Abortion is, on Balance, Moral," has been made subtlety in two different ways thus far: 1) If 20% to 50% of all pregnancies end in an abortion naturally, concerns and questions about the morality of abortions in general, as a principle, can be raised. Specifically, when and how. An understanding of cell biology and what a three-day-old blastocyst is made of is critical for moral judgments if our primary concern if for suffering and a concern for violating human rights because of person-hood. In other words, if a three-day-old blastocyst is nothing more than a clump of 150 cells, which cannot feel pain, retains no memory, cannot be assigned right to life as a full human, etc., then there are no moral qualms implementing any kind of abortion at/during these stages. And if nature naturally aborts a high percentage of fertilized ovum at these stages, perhaps our moral concern for the suffering of a zygote and blastocyst is silly. The question becomes, like asking when an acorn becomes and oak tree, when does a clump of cells become more than a clump of cells and becomes a person, with rights, feelings, etc.? Once we established person-hood, all rights to life should be equal morally. If you make the case that abortion is immoral yet make an exception in cases to save the mother, after person-hood has been established, abortion to save the mother still violates the moral standard that abortion is immoral. Morally, like David Hume, it becomes your personal "taste" to save the mother over the unborn person (who also has equal right to life). 2) Every cell (with a nucleus) within my body can be directed to make any kind of tissue. The skin cells from my nose can be used to make a new ear, or a new arm, or a new _______ (fill in the blank). A clump of 1,000,000,000,000 cells doesn't necessarily insure "person-hood" if these cells only comprise my leg which is full of tumors. A cell can be manipulated to make a clone. So clearly the arithmetic of cells does nothing to establish what it means to be a human being. When does a human being become a human being?