Abortion Is Generally Morally Reprehensible

IntroductionMy opponent provided no standards for morality for the context of this debate (meaning none were agreed on beforehand). He cannot then logically argue that abortion meets some subjective standards he gave in R2 because any such argument will necessarily be subjective and opinion-based. I could just as easily structure hundreds of standards for what makes something "immoral" where abortion does not qualify. Unless my opponent can provide evidence that the standard he has presented is objective, absolute, and the only possible standard for morality, it cannot be concluded based on his argument that "abortion is generally morally reprehensible," only that abortion is "immoral" based on an arbitrary standard not important to the debate.On the other hand, I have provided an argument based specifically on the definitions given: Abortion in most cases (generally) is not impermissible or deserving of harsh criticism, reproof, etc. (reprehensible) concerning or relating to principles of right and wrong in human behavior. Instead of presenting an argument based on vague, subjective concepts, I have opted to focus on the concrete qualities of the debate topic. There is no absolute standard, but we can look at at the standards and opinions people generally hold as well as their manifestations in an evidence based manner. My argument is not that just that there is no majority who thinks that abortion should be reprehensible. I have presented evidence that in general abortion is not morally reprehensible but in fact permitted.FLO RebuttalThis "theory" is useless to defend my opponent's position. "The misfortune of a premature death deprives one..."My opponent's argument is riddled with and founded on unwarranted assertions. The claim that enjoyment is good and being deprived of experiences, projects, etc. is bad has no foundation and cannot be argued for with evidence. This is merely a subjective standard for determining if something is "wrong." My opponent's argument boils down to a single opinion. His conclusion is only correct when the opinion is assumed to be true.Rebuttal: "Shifting the goalposts"Unless my opponent can provide an absolute basis for his standards of morality or show that they are generally held AND practiced by most people, he has shifted goalposts to arguing for a morality based on standards not given in R1.Morality is Subjective; Without Agreed Upon Standards, General Opinion Is What MattersWhat is considered "right and wrong" is determined by humans. My opponent cannot successfully pretend to define a concept for the entirety of humanity; he cannot simply introduce standards that favour his argument now. Any arbitrary standard I could introduce would be of equal weight."Somehow my opponent misinterpreted the resolution. . ."Just as words have no inherent meaning but are defined by human usage, what is generally immoral is determined by human opinion. There can be no simply "immoral" without a single absolute standard; there can only be "immoral" based on agreed upon standards/definitions (none were given for this debate) or "generally immoral" based on people's general opinions about what should be labelled as "immoral." "Reprehensible" also plays an important role, for it is not just opinions but also their physical manifestations that matter (we would expect abortion to not be permitted and be harshly condemned if it was morally reprehensible).The law can be seen to show both (what is generally considered immoral and deserving of condemnation is in turn banned and not permitted), so I am absolutely justified in using the law as a defense. My opponent has dropped this part of my argument.Counter: All Accused FallaciesWe are discussing morality, a matter my opponent seemingly admits is subjective. Sources such as human opinion, human practice, and human laws are absolutely relevant. I have to wonder what my opponent thinks the basis of his argument is if not opinion.Counter: "Appeal to Law Fallacy"This is a straw man. I specifically explained the relationship between the law and what is deemed immoral and impermissible and did not equivocate the two. My argument was that what is generally seen as morally impermissible is reflected in the law (i.e. murder). My opponent has addressed none of my arguments supporting the relationship between what is deemed morally reprehensible and what is illegal but has instead grossly misconstrued my point to say that I am arguing that the law and morality are the same. Things that are generally determined to be morally reprehensible are made illegal. At NO point did I ever state that the law determines morality. My point was just the opposite; it only reflects.Counter: "Argumentum ad populum"This, again, shows a misunderstanding of morality. With no agreed upon standards, whether something is generally morally reprehensible CAN ONLY be determined by the general subjective opinions of people. If my argument is to be dismissed as an appeal to popular opinion, then my opponent's argument must be necessarily dismissed as well since the only weight behind it the opinion he shares with Marquis."At one time most people approved of slavery . . ."If this was the case, clearly it was not morally reprehensible by their standards. If people generally consider slavery to not be immoral, then to claim it is requires some absolute standard for what is moral."Therefore, my opponent has practically conceded his loss when he claimed: 'If abortion was morally reprehensible then most people would think so.'"This misquote shows a misunderstanding of morality and my argument."If we take the US to be loosely representative of global attitude.."Why in the world would we do this? I presented abortion laws from the entire world to show that abortion is frequently permitted. To offer up a few polls specific to the opinions of people from a single country is vastly insufficient, and to call 39% a small minority is laughable. My opponent must show that the opinions of the entire world are generally in tune with his and that these opinions are also reflected in regard to what is not permitted. This must be a majority clear enough for such a sweeping generalization to be considered correct. Remember, as I have described, opinions are not the only thing that matters; action taken is an important component in determining what is "morally reprehensible."Counter: "Appeal to Common Practice"Another straw man. If something is generally seen as impermissible, then human actions would be expected to be generally consistent with the viewpoint. This is the case for murder and most other practices that can be agreed to fit this description. It is not the case for abortion. If everyone stole, then it is highly likely that stealing would be considered an acceptable practice; neither is the case. My conclusion has nothing to do with general practice determining "moral correctness." This is just more projection of an ubsubstantiated assumption of a single absolute morality not determined by humans.Counter: "Straw man fallacy"Again, the irony here is that this is a straw man of my argument. Not only has my opponent put something in quotations that I never said (a repeated misleading occurence), but he has also stated that I claimed he thinks people who have or approve of abortions should be harassed. I said nothing of people who approve of abortion, and my opponent's argument here is founded on the assumption that "harassment" can only refer to physical violence and must be different from "rebuke." This is ridiculous and unimportant.Etc.The concept of "right to life" is not something that just exists inherently or that should just be accepted because the phrase exists. The positive, unqualified (and implicitly absolute) claim that fetuses have a "right to life" must be defended; the burden of proof is entirely on my opponent, not that it's even relevant. Whether abortion is "justified" is also absolutely irrelevant to the debate.