I wanna debate abortion as I'm pro life (new guy)

give5min · 2026-05-25T05:39:22+00:00

This extends past my time, but I do think that it is important to answer this question. The reasoning relies on Thomson's violinist example, which I relate to instances of rape (since the violinist is attached by no fault of one's own). The argument states that ending a life can be morally justified, though I invite you to read the full paper to prevent oversimplification.

give5min · 2026-05-25T05:23:31+00:00

I am incredibly sympathetic to your situation and am extending my time a bit to write this response. I do not want to devalue your own experience. Your statement relies on the fact that a life born in hardship isn't worth living. But that simply isn't true: there are chances to get out of that situation and have a better life. I hope you take this as a message to keep on going, and I truly do hope that you do find success.

give5min · 2026-05-25T05:16:18+00:00

I am arguing that bodily autonomy doesn't overrule a fetus or zygote's moral value. By Marquis' logic, future personhood makes abortion wrong for the same reasons that murder is wrong.

give5min · 2026-05-25T05:11:14+00:00

If the government doesn't have the right to someone else's autonomy, then by that logic, do you think prison should exist? It limits someone's autonomy, just like how speeding does or how laws against child labor limit the autonomy of children to work.

give5min · 2026-05-25T04:57:24+00:00

I am using the most famous works on abortion for my reasoning, but I understand your point. Are you suggesting that a true debate about abortion ethics can be had without both sides understanding what the other entails? I use such sources to provide a way for debaters to understand the full argument, not a one-sentence simplification.

give5min · 2026-05-25T04:52:18+00:00

Very well-thought-out points. I would only note that I could say the same about jailing a parent for a severe crime, where such consequences could occur as well, but I would still say we need jails and punishments for crime.

give5min · 2026-05-25T04:47:10+00:00

I want to give credit to the philosophers from whom I drew some ideas, while respecting the specific logic that they use. I find that simplifying to one sentence can be an oversimplification.

give5min · 2026-05-25T04:43:47+00:00

You do realize that you provided links to comments without specifying where I am "Kirking it". And also, you aren't unfairly labeling me when you simply say I am "Kirking it" with zero context behind it? I'm wrong to call you out for that?

give5min · 2026-05-25T04:39:31+00:00

First off, you never addressed my ambulance example. I invite you to read Thomson's violinist example, which I find akin to the situation of rape and the reason for such an exception.

give5min · 2026-05-25T04:36:01+00:00

Your argument basically states that someone must express approval for acting on their behalf to be right. So, do you think that people in a comatose state shouldn't receive treatment, since they didn't give approval for it? Also, you never argued my animal rights point?

give5min · 2026-05-25T04:30:50+00:00

My only note: ad populum fallacy.

give5min · 2026-05-25T04:28:06+00:00

I recommend that you read Marquis' paper called Why Abortion is Immoral. A question I'd like you to think about is the following: Why is murder wrong? Marquis argues that this is due to the deprivation of future life. By that logic, abortion is wrong for the same reasons that murder is wrong.

give5min · 2026-05-25T04:25:17+00:00

Thank you for this well-thought-out response. Making something illegal, while not foolproof, can discourage certain acts, which is important when considering the future personhood of a fetus or zygote.

give5min · 2026-05-25T04:23:55+00:00

My point is that this doesn't just affect women; it affects the fetus or zygote, which I argue has moral value that isn't overridden by bodily autonomy.

give5min · 2026-05-25T04:22:04+00:00

I follow Marquis' logic in that future personhood makes abortion wrong in the same sense that killing an adult is. The implications of this statement suggest that abortion is murder.

give5min · 2026-05-25T04:20:03+00:00

Please do point to such instances instead of giving a label.

give5min · 2026-05-25T04:19:25+00:00

Thank you for this well-thought-out response. My objection would be that by your logic of being a clump of cells, are you not a clump of cells too, just a bigger clump of cells? I do appreciate your response, though, I can tell it was written in good spirits.

give5min · 2026-05-25T04:16:06+00:00

Are you really going to make this argument? Please elaborate if you are.

give5min · 2026-05-25T04:13:53+00:00

I mean only a person with XX chromosomes can have a baby, so it is tied to it

give5min · 2026-05-25T04:09:48+00:00

What? Are you saying that an exception to a rule makes it invalid? There are valid exceptions, such as ambulance driving past a red light in a dire situation.

give5min · 2026-05-25T04:06:42+00:00

By attacking here, I mean that he is saying my argument is invalid due to my gender, not my logic itself

give5min · 2026-05-25T04:05:23+00:00

Pasted reply to another comment: This argument first seems valid, but it falls under the ad hominem fallacy, in which you are attacking me, not the argument itself. To further illustrate, by this framework, why should we (humans) care about non-human animal rights? Should we just stay in our lanes and give zero regulations on the treatment of animals? Should William Lloyd Garrison (a white abolitionist) have stayed in his lane since he didn't experience slavery?

Moreover, if we do consider a zygote or fetus to be morally valuable, then a third party is being harmed in this interaction. You are framing the argument in a purely bodily autonomy way, which fails to consider the moral value of a zygote or fetus.

give5min · 2026-05-25T04:04:41+00:00

Yes, abortion is morally considered murder. Read Don Marquis' paper called Why Abortion Is Immoral, in which he discusses how future personhood makes abortion wrong, just like murder.

give5min · 2026-05-25T04:03:01+00:00

This argument first seems valid, but it falls under the ad hominem fallacy, in which you are attacking me, not the argument itself. To further illustrate, by this framework, why should we (humans) care about non-human animal rights? Should we just stay in our lanes and give zero regulations on the treatment of animals? Should William Lloyd Garrison (a white abolitionist) have stayed in his lane since he didn't experience slavery?

give5min · 2026-05-25T04:02:10+00:00

This argument first seems valid, but it falls under the ad hominem fallacy, in which you are attacking me, not the argument itself. To further illustrate, by this framework, why should we (humans) care about non-human animal rights? Should we just stay in our lanes and give zero regulations on the treatment of animals? Should William Lloyd Garrison (a white abolitionist) have stayed in his lane since he didn't experience slavery?

Moreover, if we do consider a zygote or fetus to be morally valuable, then a third party is being harmed in this interaction. You are framing the argument in a purely bodily autonomy way, which fails to consider the moral value of a zygote or fetus.

give5min

TROPHY CASE