Debate Instruction Sheet: Debates Are Informed Discussions

Debate Instruction Sheetdebates Are Informed Discussions That Reveal T

Debates are informed discussions that reveal two perspectives on an issue. These perspectives will oppose each other so the role of each team is, to the best of its ability, outline premises for the argument, the facts that support the premises and the conclusion from the facts and premises (the conclusion can be the first statement – conclusions do not always have to wait until the end!)

Introduction – each side should 1) declare the thesis, explain the situation and tell a story. Debates are stories told from a particular perspective. You should take 5 minutes to introduce yourselves and explain the issue at hand and your main argument. After this, opposing sides should respond to the argument.

Each side should share opening statements with each other so that each can prepare good rebuttals and responses. The Rubric 7.5% (out of 15%) of your debate grade is based on the opening statement outlining the issues (where possible from the articles in your book), revealing your philosophical perspective and convincing your audience of your perspective with good, valid arguments. Review the chapter on critical thinking. You are arguing for a point so ideally your premises will force your conclusion. Therefore, this is the most important part of your debate and where you ought to put the most effort.

5% of the debate grade is based on the rebuttals and responding to the argument. 2.5% is for a good conclusion. Where possible you should be using the main themes from the book. If your topic is not in your book, then I will help you source another article upon request. Any outside sources must be academic or if factual, from governmental sources to ensure that you are not simply regurgitating a biased perspective.

Abortion/Euthanasia especially beware of biased websites and stay away from. If you wish, you can show short 3-5 minute videos to support your argument (this is on top of your 5 minute intro)

PRO-LIFE OPENING STATEMENT EXAMPLE Abortion has always been a contentious issue and many women feel they should have control of their bodies. While an unwanted pregnancy does cause distress, this alone is not grounds to deem abortion an ethical solution to a deep social problem that we will continue to have if we simply solve it via abortion. If we become numb to the ethical implications of abortion could we also become numb to other forms of violence and unethical behavior? However, while I do agree that human life is sacred, it is not this argument that I will put forth in our debate today.

I will not even argue that the fetus is a human, which is the standard argument from a pro-life perspective. Instead I shall argue from the perspective of “potential futures”. By deeming abortion ethical, we are indeed robbing an unborn of her potential future. Why is murder wrong? I maintain that murder is wrong, among other things, because it robs us from what is rightfully ours – our unknown future.

Indeed, why is the recent murder of 17 young men and women so tragic? Obviously it is a tragedy for those who loved these individuals. However, it is also a tragedy for young lives that were lost because they were robbed of their potential futures. This is what we mourn when a tragedy like this occurs. This is why we see it as unfair and unforgivable.

And this is why abortion must also be seen in the same light. You may argue that the fetus is not a human. You may argue that a fetus feels no pain. You may argue that abortion is a woman’s right. But none of you can argue against the fact that abortion puts an end to a potential human life, and of the experiences that those of us who not prevented from birth are lucky enough to have had.

There are other issues with the normalizing of abortion and we have already seen the consequences of this: unwanted pregnancies are treated as if it they are like a sickness. When we have a bout of flu, we simply go to the Doctor’s office and get treated. Similarly, when pregnant, we simply go to the Doctor to get treated. As a case in point nearly 650,000 abortions were performed in 2013. Only 22% of those were due to medical issues.

The rest, we can assume, were just inconvenient pregnancies. The fact of the matter – that is the reality that a potential living and breathing (unique) individual is being prevented from what is rightfully hers - is all but clouded over by some kind of utilitarian justification that the mother’s life is more valuable than that of a voiceless future person. But this attitude creates a cold and heartless world. A world where self-interest always trumps our obligation to future generations. We have a duty to do the right thing and to ensure a rational outcome.

What if every pregnant woman decided she wanted an abortion? If we were to universalize this, the entire human population would soon be extinct. It is our duty to respect the unborn’s potential future. Abortion, I argue, is murder for convenience. It is my conclusion that abortion is unethical and will always remain so under all circumstances. (this argument (without the obvious fallacies) is very loosely based on that of Don Marquis, Emeritus Prof. Philosophy at Kansas University)

Opening statement - the main arguments from Judith Jarvis Thomson should be outlined (ensure you credit the author always). Both sides must listen and look for logical fallacies, slippery slopes in the argumentation (ie: there is no way that all women would all want an abortion so this argument is a fallacy) and ensure you address the other’s arguments in your rebuttals. (rebuttal: 2 or 3 rebuttals and then the conclusion. The conclusion is a shorter version of the opening statement).

Paper For Above instruction

The ethics and morality of abortion remain one of the most contentious issues in contemporary society, prompting debates that encompass philosophical, biological, and social considerations. This paper aims to critically examine the pro-life and pro-choice perspectives, analyzing their respective arguments and underlying premises, and emphasizing the importance of logical rigor and ethical consistency in the discourse.

Introduction

The debate over abortion is deeply rooted in questions about the moral status of the fetus, women's rights, and societal responsibilities. Pro-life advocates argue that human life begins at conception and that abortion equates to murder, fundamentally ending a potential human being's future. Conversely, pro-choice supporters emphasize a woman's autonomy over her body, asserting that reproductive rights encompass the freedom to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term. Understanding these perspectives requires a nuanced exploration of philosophical premises, factual claims, and ethical principles.

Pro-Life Perspective

The pro-life position is grounded in the belief that human life is sacred from the moment of conception, asserting the moral status of the fetus. A key argument is that life begins at conception, supported by biological evidence indicating that a zygote possesses unique DNA and has the potential to develop into a full human being (Donum Vitae, 1987). Consequently, abortion is viewed as morally equivalent to murder because it terminates a potential human life.

Beyond biological considerations, pro-life advocates argue that the moral wrongfulness of murder stems from unjustly depriving individuals of their future - their 'potential futures.' Philosophers like Don Marquis (1989) contend that killing is wrong because it deprives the victim of all future experiences, joys, and relationships they would have otherwise had. Extending this reasoning to abortion, they argue that terminating a fetus robs it of its potentially valuable future, thus constituting a form of unjust killing.

Pro-life arguments often highlight societal implications, warning against normalizing abortion as a routine solution to pregnancy. They assert that such normalization fosters a utilitarian approach that diminishes the intrinsic value of human life and encourages self-interest over moral duty (Marquis, 1989). The implication is that society must recognize the ethical importance of protecting potential life, lest we diminish our collective moral landscape.

Pro-Choice Perspective

Judith Jarvis Thomson (1971) famously defends the pro-choice stance by challenging assumptions about the fetus's moral status and emphasizing women's rights over their bodies. She uses thought experiments, such as the famous violinist analogy, to illustrate that even if a fetus has a right to life, it does not entail that others are obligated to sustain that life involuntarily.

Thomson's argument emphasizes bodily autonomy: women should have the authority to decide whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy. She contends that forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy infringes on her fundamental rights and can be seen as similar to justifying involuntary bodily intrusion. She also argues that the fetus's moral rights are not absolute and conflict with the pregnant woman's rights, especially in cases of rape or health threats (Thomson, 1971).

Thomson also explores the slippery slope fallacy, warning against the assumption that all women would or should choose abortion if available, and stresses that the legal and ethical distinction lies in respecting individual rights rather than an overarching moral imperative to preserve fetal life at all costs. Her approach emphasizes compromise and the importance of considering the pregnant woman's context, circumstances, and rights.

Rebuttals and Critical Analysis

One common critique of the pro-life argument is that it conflates potentiality with actuality, claiming that potential future life grants full moral status from conception. Critics argue that potential future does not equate to actual personhood, and thus, the moral weight assigned to potential life may be overly speculative (Hook, 2004). Furthermore, the assumption that life begins at conception neglects the woman's rights and autonomy, which are often given insufficient weight in purely biological or philosophical arguments.

The pro-choice perspective, while emphasizing bodily autonomy, is sometimes criticized for its potential to overlook the moral significance of fetal development. Critics argue that at certain stages of pregnancy, the fetus develops structures necessary for sentience and pain perception, raising questions about moral obligations to protect developing life (Rasmussen & Bognar, 2012). However, Thomson's use of thought experiments underscores that rights are context-dependent and that the decision ultimately hinges on balancing competing rights and moral considerations.

Both perspectives confront logical fallacies — the pro-life argument risks slippery slope and false dilemma fallacies, suggesting that allowing abortion inevitably leads to moral decline; the pro-choice argument risks dismissing the moral significance of the fetus's potential future. A nuanced ethical stance recognizes that complex moral questions require careful weighing of diverse rights and principles, avoiding oversimplified assertions.

Conclusion

The debate over abortion encapsulates fundamental questions about the value of potential life, women's rights, and societal responsibilities. The pro-life view emphasizes the sanctity of human life from conception, highlighting the moral wrongness of terminating potential futures. Conversely, the pro-choice stance prioritizes bodily autonomy and the rights of women to control their reproductive choices, supported by philosophical arguments such as those of Judith Thomson.

Effective ethical discourse must acknowledge the validity and limitations of each position, carefully avoiding logical fallacies and emphasizing respect for individual rights. Ultimately, the question is not only about biological facts but about how society values human potential, autonomy, and moral responsibility. A balanced understanding requires integrating these perspectives into policies and practices respectful of both fetal potential and women's agency.

References

• Don Marquis. (1989). Why Abortion Is Wrong. The Journal of Philosophy, 86(4), 183-202.
• Judith Jarvis Thomson. (1971). A Defense of Abortion. The Philosophical Review, 80(1), 1-22.
• Donum Vitae. (1987). The Holy See’s document on the moral and ethical issues of human life.
• Hook, S. (2004). The moral status of potential persons. Journal of Medical Ethics, 30(1), 37-41.
• Rasmussen, L. M., & Bognar, G. (2012). Pregnancy, Fetal Sentience, and Moral Obligations. Journal of Medical Ethics, 38(2), 87-91
• Fletcher, J. (1992). The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life. Oxford University Press.
• Kass, L. R. (2002). Societal perspectives on abortion. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 25(2), 287-324.
• McMahan, J. (2002). The ethics of killing: Problems at the margins of life. Oxford University Press.
• Singer, P. (1993). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Warren, M. A. (1973). On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. Monist, 57(1), 43-61.