Pro
#1
Thank you to SomeDebatePerson for both joining this tournament, the first in Debatecraft's history, and for debating this particular topic with me. It's fun to start things off with this debate in particular, given how common it is and that I normally find myself in your position on it. But that's part of the joy of doing these debates and one of my favorite things about debate in general.
With that, I'll get into my opening round. I'm going to try to keep things relatively simple and set aside thought experiments for the purpose of laying out a clear and concise case (at least for me). Mainly, I just want to do some table-setting for the focus of this debate. With that in mind, a couple of points of framing:
OV1: This is necessarily a value debate, with the focus on the morality of abortion rather than its practical implementation. While abortion as policy is still relevant to this debate, neither side is required to uphold a specific policy position. That’s why the BoP is shared. It is not sufficient within the bounds of this debate for one side to simply negate the position of the other, as even absolute success in that regard should only result in a tied debate.
OV2: As a value debate, each of us is required to uphold a given value, i.e. the overarching principle that we individually pursue using our arguments. We may both uphold the same value. We must also both present a criterion that we use to access said value, i.e. the framework that will allow judges to determine who better upholds their principle.
My value is apparent: human life. It is the fundamental means by which we access anything else we value. It’s a prerequisite to achieving any other value for humanity, which means loss of life necessarily impedes access to all other values one might achieve. As such, the side in this debate that best preserves or promotes life necessarily achieves the greatest value.
My value criterion follows from that: preserving lives. In all instances where it is plausible to preserve human life without sacrificing another human life, that should be the default. It follows, therefore, that taking a human life via abortion runs contrary to preservation (as many abortions do, since they do not preserve the life of the unborn nor the mother), therefore, that abortion is immoral.
OV3: Finally, I’ll draw attention to the words “on balance” and how they’re defined in the description: “under usual circumstances.” This places the focus of this debate on what is by far the most common reason people seek an abortion: namely, elective reasons such as finances, preparedness, and opportunity costs.[1] Other issues may be discussed, and while those may demonstrate that abortion is justifiable depending on the circumstances, for the purposes of this debate, those justifications must be relevant to more than just a small minority of abortion cases to hold significant sway in this debate.
I’ll break this down to two contentions to start:
First, personhood.
Both sides in this debate should be able to acknowledge that, biologically, at any stage of development, the unborn is human. They have human DNA and have the capacity to develop into an infant given the appropriate environment, nutrition, and chemical and biological signals.
By contrast, personhood is an externally applied concept, a point at which we determine that a given human is due certain legal and moral rights. The core of this debate is the argument over when personhood should be applied. My opponent and I will likely agree that a human born into the world alive is deserving of the label of “person,” so the question becomes: does that label extend to points before birth?
I will argue that a distinct human (i.e. a set of cells not singularly produced by a single parent) should, regardless of stage of development, be treated as a person. Setting any other point necessarily treats all previous points of development (i.e. prior to the zygote forming) as non-humans or at least as humans not deserving of personhood, which functionally reduces their value. To avoid arbitrarily setting aside humans as worth less than others, we should agree that all humans should be treated as persons.
Second, human value.
Humans value those entities most like themselves.
We can chalk that up to some baked in view that the survival of the human species is paramount, but that doesn’t really explain why we should value individual humans, just the persistence of the species.
More individually, since we can empathize with other humans, we are more capable of understanding the fragility of life and the damage its loss leaves behind - because we can imagine how another human thinks, we can connect with them on a level we cannot with other animals.
We can simply recognize that human lives have extrinsic value. We rely on one another for the knowledge, work and contributions we make, which in turn enhances the quality of other human lives. We personally and collectively benefit from the existence of other humans.
Humans also have inherent value, regardless of what and whether we contribute to society. That’s the reason why personhood extends to all humans and not just those humans who do the most good for the world. Our utility is only one expression of that value, not the sole means by which we have it. We see value in the experience of life and believe everyone should be granted the opportunity to experience it. Key to this is that we’re not just reinforcing the value of present experiences, but future ones as well. Our capacity to have any experiences grants us worth, whether that experience exists in the present or is yet to occur.
This is why, at any stage of development, a human has their value: because we recognize that our capacity to experience things in both the present and future are worth protecting. From the moment of their conception, a human is placed on a trajectory that will lead to those future experiences.
We recognize that humans have value not just for what they are currently doing and/or could do in the present. Losing out on both the value we bring others and the experiences of our futures is harmful. Loss of life, particularly for the unborn, deprives them of any opportunity to express their value, and therefore is a moral wrong.
