Abortion Is Generally Morally Reprehensible

On MoralityMy opponent has conceded that morality is subjective. Just as words have no inherent meaning and require subjective interpretation, morality does not have one correct interpretation or set of standards. My opponent's claim is similar to claiming that one can provide a "correct" definition for "pen" and give standards that should be accepted for determining what a pen is without either showing that the word has inherent, absolute meaning or providing evidence of what the word is generally used to mean. If morality is subjective, then there is no such thing as a "correct" or "better" set of standards for what is moral, so my opponent's argument contradicts itself. My opponent admits that his standards are subjective and yet claims that they should be generally or universally applied. The only way my opponent's debate resolution can be interpreted where evidence for it (not opinion) can be presented is with regards to whether or not abortion is generally seen as "immoral" an in turn not permitted.Since "pen" has no inherent meaning, what is generally determined to be a pen is based on the general perception of what the word refers to. It is fairly easy to determine perceived meaning for something concrete like an object. However with more abstract concepts such as love or morality, there is much greater variation in standards and definitions. Just as the term "abortion" had to be defined for a clear debate to be had, the words "right" and "wrong" would have needed to been properly qualified (for example.. wrong being defined as constituting harm towards life and then harm and life in turn being explicitly defined) for my opponent to have made a rational argument based on his presented standards. He claims that abortion is wrong because it harms a fetus. Since harm was never given as characteristic of "wrong" and was not explicitly defined, this is totally irrelevant. I could just as easily argue that whatever I choose to define as "harm" is good and moral. This of course would likely go against the popular view, but my opponent's argument seems to be that the popular view does not matter.My opponent's claim that his argument has more weight because he has provided "moral reasons" is like claiming that one can give "romantic reasons" for why love should be defined only one way. It is utter nonsense. As I have pointed out, any number of definitions with equal weight could be given where abortion is not determined to be immoral."We always have to start at a common principle which cannot be proved. I take the wrongness of harming as such an axiom.""My opponent claims that I did not provide a moral standard in this debate...I have spent my entire opening putting forth a moral framework"This is an obvious straw man; I clearly referred to my opponent's opening proposition. We did not start with a common principle or standard of morality for this debate. There should be no assumptions made for the basis of an argument unless initially agreed upon or generally agreed upon where what is generally agreed upon is given as the standard.My opponent's argument rests on the dishonesty of giving standards midway into the debate and simply asserting that they should be accepted.What would have been a valid argument is if he hard argued that the same principle that makes killing an adult be considered wrong can be applied to a fetus and then provided evidence to show that most people deem murder "immoral" because it deprives people of their futures. He did not defend or make this argument.His demand for an 'objective, absolute, and the only possible standard for morality' is simply ridiculous."Indeed. My point is that this is not possible."Instead he assumed moral relativism, by reasserting his position when he goes on to argue that the majority decides what is morally permissible"This is the same laughable straw man. What is generally considered to be permissible obviously depends on considerations of the majority. It is the fallacy of special pleading to claim that morality is somehow not just another word/concept but has meaning apart from humans. Does my opponent also deny that language and the meaning of words are determined by humans? I have not argued that the majority determine "moral truth" only that there is no such thing as "moral truth" while there is such a thing as general opinions about human construct of morality."...there exists no difference, in the relevant moral sense, between the fetus and infant."The "relevant moral sense" is, again, my opponent's opinion (which he provided no support for being relevant). My opponent's argument revolves around terms and standards he has never defined that have no clear meaning to anyone besides himself."This is deceptively tricky, as everything is in some sense a matter of opinion"No it isn't. If my opponent had originally presented a standard for what is wrong, he could have made an argument based on that standard that was not opinion based.On LegalityMy opponent's claim that I equivocate morality and the law is akin to claiming that because a strong desire will likely manifest itself in actions being taken that actions and desires are the same and that the actions determine desire in reverse. What is impermissible to most people is highly likely to be made illegal. Often the relationship is even stronger; consider sharia law.My opponent again pushes for absolutism by saying that he has shown that "law can be wrong" (an unqualified, absolute statement). My point was never that the law determined morality, only that general moral opinions are reflected in the law. By his rejection of this, my opponent implies that the status of abortion laws in no way reflects how people perceive abortion with regards to "right" and "wrong." By claiming that my argument is wrong, he is necessarily claiming that there is no relationship between the law and popular moral conceptions and that what is not permitted by law has nothing to do with what is seen as impermissible.On BoPIndeed the BoP is shared, and I presented mine. My opponent again provided a weak rebuttal by pointing out that abortion is illegal in the majority of countries. Of course, he forgets to take into account actual population, which is actually relevant, like I did. My opponent claimed the best explanation for the "wrongness of killing" is the fact that people are deprived of their future but did not even attempt to show that people generally consider killing wrong for this reason. I would argue that it is much more likely that there is no such conscious reason why people have an adverse reaction to killing. Had the debate gone in this direction, I would have presented biological reasons that explain the adverse reaction to murder in general much better. Furthermore, if this was the general reasoning, we would expect this to manifest itself in the real world. Killing people is generally not permitted, but this is not the case with abortion as I have shown.Right to LifeThis argument is irrelevant and invalid for reasons I have already explained. The term "right" was never defined nor was "right to life" given as something that would relate to what is morally reprehensible. All my reasons for rejecting what my opponent said about FLO apply here, so there is no need for me to address it again.ConclusionThe difference between our arguments is that my opponent provided his personal standards for morality and I actually addressed the debate resolution to give evidence that it is not the case that abortion is morally reprehensible as defined.I conclude that I have met my burden of proof as my opponent has utterly failed to address or refute my initial case affirming not the pro-choice position (which is entirely irrelevant to the debate) but the position that abortion is not morally reprehensible as defined. On the other hand I have soundly refuted my opponent’s case, showing that it relies solely on assertions and his own personal subjective standard.