CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:22
Arguments:18
Total Votes:26
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Isn't Pluralism A Much More Reasonable View Than Either Pro-Life Or Pro-Choice? (18)

Debate Creator

lunacyfrog pic



Isn't Pluralism A Much More Reasonable View Than Either Pro-Life Or Pro-Choice?

Pro-Life Position:

The proper terminology is "unborn baby"

The fundamental right is the right to live.  This right is paramount and must be preserved at all costs and in all situations.

The ultimate evil is murder.  It is the worst possible evil in all circumstances, and must be avoided at all costs.  If something looks like it might be murder, we must err on the side of avoiding it.  In other words, a tie always goes to preserving life.

 

Pro-Choice Position:

The proper terminology is "fetus"

The fundamental right is the freedom for a women to choose what to do with her own body.  This right is paramount and must be preserved at all costs and in all situations.

The fundamental evil is taking or restricting a woman's freedom to choose what to do with her own body.  It is the worst possible evil in all situations and must be avoided at all costs.  If it is unclear whether something is part of the woman's body or independent, we must err on the side that it is part of her body.  In other words, a tie always goes to preserving the woman's liberty.

 

Pluralist Position

Proponents of pro-life and pro-choice both "load the terminology"of their arguments with evocative word choices to skew sentiment towards their own pre-determined view. 

Pro-lifers use "unborn baby" to make it clear that a human life is at stake, neatly sidestepping pesky questions of sentience, free will, and physical human development.

Pro-choicers use "fetus" to dehumanize the debate and attempt to justify it, with the surfacely-plausible "Well that's just what it is!"  Of course, the use of scientific terminology is neither necessary nor common within the context of moral/philosophical debate.  ("H2O" is just what water is, but you will never find it referred to that way in a debate over the resource between two rival desert tribes.)

The right to life and the right to freedom over one's own body are both valuable and important rights with neither being obviously fundamental across all circumstances.  Instead, reasonable minds may differ as to which right should be emphasized within a particular set of circumstances.  

For example:

Which right is fundamental within 24 hours of conception, the right to life or the right to liberty over one's own body?  Most would say the mother's right to choose is fundamental in that case, though some may disagree.  However, which right should be emphasized when delivery is mere seconds away?  Most would say the child/fetus' right to live is fundamental in that case, though some may disagree. 

Likewise, murder and the loss of liberty over one's own body are both evils to be avoided; however, reasonable minds may differ as to which is the greater evil given a particularly set of circumstances.  Is it worse to terminate a healthy child/fetus' life or let him live doomed to be raised by an unfortunate victim of rape who never wanted him?  It would seem that both circumstances are undesirable and that reasonable minds could differ as to which is worse.

 

 

 

Having said all that, which view do you think is most reasonable?  Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, or Pluralism?

 

Add New Argument
3 points

From a purely philosophical point of view, pluralism is the only reasonable choice.

Side: Pluralism
1 point

Pluralism is still pro-choice. Pro-choice people do not advocate killing a baby mere seconds/hours/days from delivery; at that point, if the mother no longer wished to continue the pregnancy, there would be no need to kill the baby because it can survive independently of her. She would just receive an optional c-section, which is not that uncommon these days.

Once a fetus has the ability to live outside the womb, the rights of the fetus and the mother are no longer at odds. The tricky part is pinpointing when exactly this is, as not all babies have the same survival capabilities.

Side: PRO-CHOICE
casper3912(1581) Disputed
2 points

Their only not at odds after birth if she can pawn it off to someone else. Which is indeed generally the case in this society.

Side: Pluralism
zombee(1026) Disputed
0 points

I'm confused as to what adoption has to do with this debate. Also, are you saying that a mother and baby's rights conflict until she surrenders it? If so, that does not make any sense.

Side: PRO-CHOICE
lunacyfrog Disputed
1 point

Your first sentence is logically incorrect, and your second sentence is factually incorrect, as your suggestion is not universally accepted by pro-choice proponents.

With regards to your statement that "pluralism is still pro-choice": it may be the case that pluralists in our particular society would advocate the legalization of abortion; however, the pro-choice position and pluralist position are idealogically distinct.

The former states that, in close calls, the fundamental right that must be preserved is the right of the woman to choose. The latter states that, in close calls, reasonable minds could differ as to which right must be preserved, whether the right to life or the right to choose.

Your statement that "pro-choice people do not advocate killing a baby mere seconds/hours/days from delivery" is demonstrably false. I have personally debated the issue with people so committed to the rights of the mother that they believe her right to choose continues until the moment of delivery.

Moreover, you note that the mother could "just receive an optional c-section."

What makes it "optional" is the mother's choice to do so. If the mother refuses to have a C-section then we are once again faced with the issue of compulsion.

Side: Pluralism
1 point

Please note that it is logically consistent for someone to be POLITICALLY aligned with either the pro-choice or pro-life camps yet still recognize that, from an ideological standpoint, pluralism is preferable to both.

Side: Pluralism
-1 points

You make two assumptions that are incorrect or at least up for grabs:

1) that the fetus is part of the mother's body. The fetus does, in fact, use the mother's body and cannot survive without it until a certain time, but it is never actually a part of the mother's body. It is always a separate entity. In fact, if anything the fetus could be considered a parasite :)

2) that denying abortions to these women takes away a woman's right to choose. She had the choice to have sex, and still has the choice to give the baby up. I also don't believe that there is a guaranteed "right" to choose to be (or not be) pregnant. Maybe I missed this in the constitution :P

The biggest problem with pluralism is that it bypasses the crux of the argument: is the fetus a living human and, if so, when?

If it is, any abortion after the fetus is considered human is murder and very few choices are more important than a human life (and point two above shows that the woman did have choices, and sex has risks). If it is not, than abortion is just eliminating a parasite in the body.

(on a side note for reference, I am mixed on this, as I believe the fetus is a human, but not right at conception. I support abortion in its early stages, but feel it should be saved as a last alternative in extreme cases)

Side: Pluralism
lunacyfrog Disputed
1 point

If you read more carefully, I did not make an assumption that the fetus is a part of the mother's body. I was merely stating the pro-choice position. In fact, a classification one way or another is fairly arbitrary.

Moreover, pluralism does not bypass the crux of the problem, it sheds light on it: namely, that reasonable minds can differ as to whether or not the baby/fetus should be considered a living human.

If that were not the case, there would be no dilemma in the first place.

Side: Pluralism