CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
BOTH sides have the moral high ground within their own moral framework. The difference comes down fundamentally to the value and rights assigned to a pregnant woman vs a fertilized egg at various stages of development. For that matter, there is some division on both sides regarding the value and rights in question, the stage of development they begin to apply to, and the extent to which they apply to any given stage of development.
Posted on both sides as there is no 'neither/both' option.
I believe abortion is a very sad and arguably immoral choice to make. However, I also recognise that I can't force women to behave morally and that abortion is a necessary evil. Does that make me prolife or prochoice? I think it makes me both.
The baby/fetus doesn't get to make a choice, because the baby/fetus does not have the capacity to make a choice.
As an (imperfect) comparison: A 16 year old doesn't get to vote in a US presidential election, despite the fact that the decision affects hir. S/he does not have the right to a vote at this stage and is subjected to the votes of those who do.
Similarly, a fetus does not have the capacity to make a choice in utero, and as such is subjected to the choices of those who do. It may be unfortunate, but that's how it is.
Perception isn't what makes us human, it's what allows us to interact with the world. Self awareness and identity are what make us human; a person who has lost one or more senses would still be a self-aware individual. When they lose their self-awareness and identity in addition to their senses, they've lost everything that made them who they are- we call them brain dead at this point.
My understanding is the life begins when we are genetically seperate from our parents. That happens with the fusion of the male and female pronuclei and the formation of the zygote. :)
I am not speaking of biological life, I am speaking of humanity. A freshly shed drop of blood is both human and every bit as alive as a zygote, but neither carry the characteristics of an individual :)
Pro-lifers hold the moral high ground here because they are the only side that will mark a definitive point at which life begins, conception (even if they are wrong on this, they are right to pick a point). Pro-choicers are most often against late term or partial birth abortions, but they don't like to draw the line on where that fetus becomes a human. "How is it a human now but not 1 second ago?". This is the question that could draw life all the way back to conception if they choose a mid pregnancy point.
What this means is that pro-choice people are willing to allow for the legalization of possible infanticide depending on when fetus is a human. Pro-life people won't risk it.
If you look at it from each perspective and assume they are correct on their own terms, the pro-lifers seek to infringe on someones rights, which is immoral. The pro-choicers seek to kill little babies which is immoral. If both sides are correct, it's the pro-lifers that hold the high ground. Murder is worse than one infringement of rights.
Morality is subjective the way that genes are subjective, we each have a slightly different way of expressing them, but the structure is objective and defined.
Moral subjectivity is a means of avoiding the work of considering proper behavior. It basically states that anything is appropriate if the actor is morally comfortable with it. A moral subjectivist is actually an amoralist.
I'm not pro-choice, I despire that term. It requires thought to even have a choice, and a fetus can't have a choice, so it's an unfair battle if the opposition is pro-life, which is why I also despise that term. I am pro-abortion, I wear that title proudly. I feel no shame in saying that the right for a person to have an abortion should be granted, and the act should be legal. The reason i feel this way is because the 'life' of the baby, is subjectively worth less than that of the mother. Even doctors and most "pro-lifers" agree. If the mother is going to die giving birth, it'd be strongly advised she abort, no matter how late the term. I feel that to say "okay it's a baby, we can't kill it" when it poses no threat, but then to say "it's going to kill you, let's kill it" when it does is somewhat hypocritical. Is it a life and deserves it's life, or is it not and doesn't? My answer. It's a life but does not deserve anything until it can live without being attached to another creature.
I reject the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" framing of the issue as well. You either support legal abortions or you appose them. You are pro-abortion or anti-abortion. I too identify as pro-abortion, but generally avoid the topic altogether because people are too unintelligent to have a reasoned response. People get all stupid about it and think it means I think everyone should have abortions or that abortions are morally "right". People and their stupid.
I have a lot of respect for your honesty. Most "prochoice" people try to wiggle out of being called proabortion. I used to be proabortion and I had no problem being called that. Upvote for being honest.
I don't think that aborting to save the mother is hypocritical. It's self defense. If the threat to your life is totally unaware of trying to kill you, it doesn't make it's life worth less than yours, it just makes it the aggressor to defend against. Not only is this not a hypocritical position, but it makes it clear that while abortion is justifiable in this situation, it isn't justifiable in all situations.
You're going with self defense? Why wouldn't abortion under average conditions also be considered self defense. If you don't take extra precautions with the baby on board you will die. Eating for two is not just a clever way of saying "I'm pregnant" it's literally the case, if you don't eat more, you will die. That extra food, you can't just ration it off from the fetus to protect yourself, it's automatically shared with it. Aborting it is just self defense protecting you from having to eat more.
"OMG! How did that baby get in there?! I have to defend myself?!" That's really stupid.
Most people have that kid because of something they did (hint: sex). Pregnancy by rape or incest is a HUGE exception to the rule. It's not self defense if you invite someone into the house, and then kill them. It is self defense if you invite them in, they are going to kill you, and you then kill them. In case you don't see the analogy, sex is an invite.
I don't see it as any more ridiculous than the "suddenly the baby's life is less important so it's okay to kill it" self defense scenario you presented. The baby is always a strain on the mother's life, some women are actually physically unable to carry a baby in them, be it because they are malnourished, or their womb is just an inhospitable place for the fetus. In the case of the former option, the body will not be able to survive the pregnancy because the pregnancy's attack on the boy is too great. However the pregnancy's attack on the body, is constant. It just seems to only be of concern when it's reaching a deadly force, to you.
suddenly the baby's life is less important so it's okay to kill it
More like suddenly the baby is going to kill you.
The baby is always a strain on the mother's life
Let me try this again. A guest at dinner is a strain on the household. But they are there by invitation. If they show up by invitation and then they are going to kill you...self defense. It only becomes self-defense when they are going to kill you. Pregnancy is not in itself, a hostile situation.
Babies don't just appear! They get there as a direct result of conscious action 99% of the time.
My original point was directed at your original point. What you said was similar to "If you say murder is wrong, but then you kill someone who is trying to kill you, you are a hypocrite." A person is no more a hypocrite in that scenario than in the one where pro-lifers find occasion for justified abortion, even on their own moral premises.
She is physically affected by the baby in negative ways, if she does not take extra steps to survive the pregnancy she will fall ill, and eventually will die, or the fetus will die from lack of feeding off of her. Hated to resort to this but the fetus for all intents and purposes is a parasite. A desired parasite, but a parasite none the less.
Teenagers are physically affected by hormones in negative ways. It doesn't mean that a moody kid should chop of his sex bits. You always have to take extra steps to survive. After the kid is born, you have to take a whole bunch of extra steps for a long long time. This is how life works.
They are physically affected in negative ways as a means to an end. Also the problem would not be immediate remedied by removing those sexy bits.
When the child is in you, you have to take physical steps to survive, afterwards everything you have to do, is mostly a suggestion. if you don't buy enough food to feed the kid nothing will happen to you, nothing physical anyway.
BOTH sides have the moral high ground within their own moral framework. The difference comes down fundamentally to the value and rights assigned to a pregnant woman vs a fertilized egg at various stages of development. For that matter, there is some division on both sides regarding the value and rights in question, the stage of development they begin to apply to, and the extent to which they apply to any given stage of development.
Posted on both sides as there is no 'neither/both' option.
It seems to me that the moral framework of both positions comes together once the fetus is considered a human. The issue relies more on when that happens and when it is perceived to happen. Both sides value rights and liberties. Both sides value human life.
BOTH sides have the moral high ground within their own moral framework
It wasn't a misclick. The morals of both sides come together when they agree that the fetus is a human. The pro-life side is willing to say when that it (conception), while the pro-choice side doesn't want to put a legal marker on life. This means that the pro-life side wants to be really really sure they aren't committing murder, but the pro-choice side is comfortable with murder by ignorance, which is not the moral high ground.
The morals of both sides come together when they agree that the fetus is a human.
I will somewhat agree, though I would use the term 'person' rather than 'human.' Sure, the two sides come together when both sides attribute personhood/human qualities to the fetus/baby- that is more or less the entirety of the dispute between the two. I'm not sure how that is relevant to moral high ground for either?
The pro-life side is willing to say when that it (conception), while the pro-choice side doesn't want to put a legal marker on life.
A bit of an oversimplification. There are pro-life individuals who believe that life begins at fertilization, and pro-life individuals who believe that life begins at implantation. The difference between the sides is not the point at which they believe 'life' begins (as that varies internally on both sides), but rather the point at which the collection of cells is considered a person with human characteristics. I am pro-choice myself, and I don't personally consider a developing human life to be a person until well after birth. But I don't draw the line at personhood personally- I draw the line at the capacity to feel pain at the most basic primal level (early to mikd second trimester) because I don't believe the humanity of a fetus to be the only consideration- I'm opposed to killing animals solely out of convenience, and prior to the later developments of the nervous system to allow such things as self awareness, it's still alive biologically and is largely comparable to an animal that happens to share the overwhelming majority of the dna.
This means that the pro-life side wants to be really really sure they aren't committing murder, but the pro-choice side is comfortable with murder by ignorance, which is not the moral high ground.
This assessment is incorrect, because it makes the pro-life assumption that it is murder at any stage of fetal development. Murder is the intentional, unlawful killing of one person by another. While abortion is intentional, it is not unlawful within the first trimester in many jursidictions, and as such fails to be murder on that count. Furthermore, the question of whether or not a developing fetus is a person is another matter entirely.
I could pose a similar argument back at you, predicated on the assumption that the fetus is never a person and abortion is never quite murder, and argue that the pro-choice side has the moral high ground- as the pro-life crowd would essentially hold many actual people hostage in favor of the welfare of potential people.
As I stated initially- according to the morals and worldview of each, BOTH hold the moral high ground. The only way to establish one as having the moral high ground over the other is to actually take a side, and morality is subjective.
The difference between the sides is... the point at which the collection of cells is considered a person with human characteristics.
This isn't the only difference. My point that the pro-life side seeks to set a standard is true. The pro-choice lobbyist (which I have to use for generalization), don't want to have a standard set. This puts the moral high ground with the with the pro life side because they want to be sure (you caught me on a technicality about murder). Willful ignorance of the start of personhood is where pro life looses the moral high ground, even based on their own moral compass about killing people.
As for your argument switchback where fetuses are never people and abortion is always fine (up to the point of birth i assume?), you would gain moral ground in the fact that you put a standard on the beginning of a person, you would loose points for moral and biological reasoning based on observation.
If your moral standard for harm is based on pain, I'm slightly intrigued by where that moral code would lead (only slightly) but still i would challenge you to pin down a time where that begins. Once you find that moment, can you say it's ok "now" but not "tomorrow"?
PS. If your idea that neither side holds the moral high ground comes from you being a moral subjectivist, I would wonder why you even weighed in. We wouldn't need to continue the debate.
This isn't the only difference. My point that the pro-life side seeks to set a standard is true. The pro-choice lobbyist (which I have to use for generalization), don't want to have a standard set. This puts the moral high ground with the with the pro life side because they want to be sure (you caught me on a technicality about murder). Willful ignorance of the start of personhood is where pro life looses the moral high ground, even based on their own moral compass about killing people.
You're attributing more unity amongst both sides than actually exists. The lobbyists have to make compromises with the platforms they fund in order to gain votes. And I'm not particularly certain that setting a specific standard is the better choice here, morally speaking, given that the stages of development represent averages, with some members developing more quickly than others. I also don't believe it is necessary morally wrong for pro-lifers to avoid the personhood discussion; most do, because taking it to the logical extreme would seem to imply (in the overly dramatic court of public opinion) supporting not only late-term abortion but infanticide as well, and I don't believe anyone seriously wants to push that stance.
As for your argument switchback where fetuses are never people and abortion is always fine (up to the point of birth i assume?), you would gain moral ground in the fact that you put a standard on the beginning of a person, you would loose points for moral and biological reasoning based on observation.
I'm still not sure why having a standard or not scores points on a moral scale, given that the 'standard' is an accurate reflection of only a small portion of the population. I understand the need for a standard in terms of legislation, but I'm not certain how that translates to morality; can you explain?
If your moral standard for harm is based on pain, I'm slightly intrigued by where that moral code would lead (only slightly) but still i would challenge you to pin down a time where that begins. Once you find that moment, can you say it's ok "now" but not "tomorrow"?
Pain being a subjective experience, we don't truly have a way to identify whether a fetus is actually experiencing pain in the way we understand it. As such, pinning down a specific time where that begins is very difficult. We are, however, aware of the physiological processes that cause the experience of pain (whether in humans or animals) and the level of development of the central and peripheral nervous system required to support those processes. We also have data comparing level of nervous system development to the amount of response (if any) to a painful stimulus received in utero or in vitro. Individuals may vary, but the overwhelming majority of fetuses reach this level of nervous system development by midway through the second trimester (around 20 weeks). Conversely, we have never observed this level of development or response prior to 15 weeks gestation; this makes the first trimester a convenient cutoff point, though admittedly it is certainly possible that a fetus at the very end of the first trimester could be sufficiently developed to feel pain- just very, very unlikely. The variance between individuals prevents us from honestly saying its ok 'now' but not 'tomorrow,' but we can certainly put the cutoff point earlier than we've ever observed that level of development.
PS. If your idea that neither side holds the moral high ground comes from you being a moral subjectivist, I would wonder why you even weighed in. We wouldn't need to continue the debate.
I may have shades of moral subjectivism; I'm arguing here that objectively speaking, neither has the moral high ground. I do, however, believe in not only personal subjective morality, but an aggregated subjective morality amongst populations of various sizes- which is as close to objective morality as we're going to get.
I do, however, believe in not only personal subjective morality, but an aggregated subjective morality amongst populations of various sizes.
Subjective morality is objective amorality. No one has the morally wrong for anything ever, just so long as enough people agreed it was cool at the time. A moral subjectivist weighing in on a moral argument, might as well be saying "this is how I feel, but whatever". Why waste your time?
Subjective morality is objective amorality. No one has the morally wrong for anything ever, just so long as enough people agreed it was cool at the time. A moral subjectivist weighing in on a moral argument, might as well be saying "this is how I feel, but whatever". Why waste your time?
See, this is why I said I have shades of being a moral subjectivist, but don't classify myself as such. I believe that there is no such thing as objective morality, true, but I believe aggregated subjective morality across a population is a perfectly reasonable stand-in for objective morality.
Pro-life vs pro-choice is an issue that our population is extremely divided on. Neither represent a sufficiently large minority to assume either as the de facto standard; subjective morality aggregates very close to neutral, if not quite neutral on this particular issue. My statement that neither has the moral high ground isn't based on my assumption that there is no objective morality- it is based on my assessment that the aggregate of subjective morality does not favor either position over the other.
"Enough people agreed it was cool at the time" is an overly dismissive and inaccurate assessment. In my opinion, a given moral standard must be held by a very significant majority for a significant period of time for it to qualify as an aggregated subjective moral standard.
What makes you think I consider my time wasted? Were you under the impression that this site has a sufficiently large audience to use as an avenue for affecting meaningful political change? I imagine not; the purpose of this site for me is personal entertainment and enrichment. As such is certainly not a waste of my time.
This is just what you're saying but without the vocabulary. It's just the right amount of dismissive. If all you had to go on was your own individual moral compass, how should you decide? On what standard would you base moral decisions without the aggregate?
Are we talking about a possible real-world situation where I am unable to bounce the situation off of anyone else for whatever reason, and I'm simply left to my own judgement?
Or are you asking me about a hypothetical 'parallel universe' type deal where I didn't have any other morals to go off of but my own, for whatever reason? Like, if society did not enforce or push any kind of morals on anyone and everyone just did their own thing, that sorta thing?
What are the parameters here? It's going to be difficult to answer because more or less all of my experience has been within the aggregate, so to speak. As such, I can't swear to the veracity of my response, it will be at least partially speculation.
The question was simply a curiosity. Some people think really hard and come up with a standard on which to base moral decisions. Some others look around at the different ideas presented and choose the one that makes the most sense. But most people just go along with whatever idea the aggregate has imprinted on them. You can determine moral decisions without the aggregate. How would you do it?
Generally speaking, I would probably treat each individual case as its own entity rather than sticking to firm criteria. I understand that standardized criteria is important for, say, legislation, but I believe that it is misguided, at least insofar as my personal moral framework is concerned. It would of course be based on my own system of valuation, which has been affected by the aggregate any way you slice it, but is still distinct. I'm afraid I can't offer more specifics than that, but I could certainly tell you how I would personally judge any given scenario or scenarios if it were entirely up to me- that would probably be a more useful response anyway.
What is your own system of valuation? The is the basic standard of the good in your system of valuation? Does it change with each scenario? Does it change from moment to moment?
Unfortunately, I can't define my system of valuation in simple words, and I'm not exactly certain what you mean about 'basic standard of good.' It's not so easily put into words; vocabulary is failing me at describing it. It's more of a 'sense' if you will. It does not change with each scenario, but rather each scenario is different and involves different factors. Sometimes I even ignore it, because something might feel 'right' or 'wrong' when I'm fully aware that there is no reasonable reason for them to feel that way (aside from things like hormones and the like, of course). It might be fair to say that it changes from moment to moment, as each new experience I have changes my outlook on something in some way, but it's generally more along the line of refining and clarifying than reinventing.
This is why I said it would be easiest for you to describe circumstances to me and let me explain my assessment than it would be for me to actually outline my own 'system' because it's nothing as organized as that.
That general "sense" that guides your moral decisions is based on some standard. In this case a sub-conscious standard. Everyone has a standard for these things, and sometimes the standard is different depending on the situation.
The harm principle is a standard for many in the western culture. No harm no foul, basically (harm to rights as well as body).
Other times purity is the standard that people hold, this is usually sub-conscious as well. This is felt as moral indignation at the desecration of something of symbolic importance or of nature.
In most cases the moral standard held is subjective (and often irrational)to the individual or to the culture. This is because most people don't try to work out why they feel what they feel about any given circumstance. This means they don't really know what their own underlying values are.
In some cases, people can define a rational standard. If the standard is fundamental enough, it can provide insight to any given context. This is an objective morality and it's not rigid like a biblical dictate (which actually just attributing objectivity to someones subjective moral view). You can know the correctness of an objective morality by it's outcome (hint: the bible doesn't have a good track record). The right foundation can support any kind of house, but the wrong foundation can't support any.
END RANT: We are way off topic, but I wouldn't mind a new debate based on this convo.
As long as the fetus has not developed sentience, then I can't see anything wrong with aborting it. You aren't ending a life, you may be preventing one from developing but not terminating one. To be outraged by abortion to me is like being outraged that hypothetical person with a, b, c traits hasn't came into existence.
"briefly"... within that time you completely reinterpreted the Bible to fit with the belief and called pro-life people immoral and accused them of wanting to 'force pregnancies'.
Can you say at what point sentience is developed? If it can't be pinned down, are you comfortable with risking murder? If it can be pinned down, are you willing to say that it's a human being "now" and not "2 seconds ago"?
I think the first sign of sentience would be the experience of pain.
If a thing had sentience, but no longer has sentience, can we still abort it?
I think 2 seconds would be way to small of a range, but, if it hasn't come too close to the point of developing sentience, then I see no issue.
You said it can be pinned down, but requiring a wide range is the opposite of pinned down. Whatever moment you pin sentience to, there will be a pro-lifer saying "why is it human now, but not 2 seconds ago?" And the pro-choice movement will have to think of something. This is why, even though most pro-choicers are against late term abortion, the pro-choice lobbyist put up a fight against laws against it.
If a thing had sentience, but no longer has sentience, can we still abort it?
I see no reason to object.
You said it can be pinned down, but requiring a wide range is the opposite of pinned down.
Wide? not knowing within a couple of seconds when sentience develops is considered to wide? that's funny... It comes down to a matter of weeks, and days.
Whatever moment you pin sentience to, there will be a pro-lifer saying "why is it human now, but not 2 seconds ago?" And the pro-choice movement will have to think of something.
We don't pin-point the exact second a fetus becomes sentience, medical professionals are probably significantly more cautious than that and would not perform an abortion before it could possibly develop sentience, and if they didn't I would hold the position that they should.
As long as the fetus has not developed sentience, then I can't see anything wrong with aborting it
This could amount to arguing that infanticide is not murder, because a baby is not fully self aware at birth. These mental facilities develop during early childhood, but a newborn baby is no more mentally capable then some animals.