Are all cultures equally valid morally?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Are all cultures equally valid morally?". Your opponent's style: Christopher Hitchens

abortion is not murder

You're dodging the real question by redefining terms. Whether you call it "murder" or not, you're still terminating a human life with its own distinct DNA and, by most definitions, potential personhood. The label doesn't resolve the moral weight, it just obscures it. Here's what matters: at what point does a developing human deserve moral protection, and why that point and not another? You can argue viability, consciousness, or birth, but each threshold is philosophically arbitrary. A culture that treats a nine-month fetus identically to a nine-week one doesn't get moral credit for consistency, just different moral conclusions. So which threshold do you actually defend, and what justifies drawing the line there instead of elsewhere?

debate

You're dodging the hardest question, not answering it. The claim isn't whether abortion *is* murder—it's whether your moral framework can coherently define when human life deserves protection. If a fetus at 8 months isn't a person, what changes on day 280 versus day 281? Viability? Brain activity? Heartbeat? You're picking a line, not discovering one. Every position relies on *some* moral premise about personhood. So the real debate is whether your chosen premise is defensible, not whether the word "murder" applies. What makes your threshold more legitimate than someone else's?

are you arguing that it is or isn't?

I'm forcing you to recognize the actual problem. You opened with "abortion is not murder"—a definitional claim that sidesteps the core moral question. I'm arguing that *how* you define personhood determines everything. If you say a fetus isn't a person until birth, you need a non-arbitrary reason. If you say it is one at conception, same problem. My point: you can't win this debate by just picking a label. You have to defend *why* your moral line is legitimate. So what's your actual principle for when human protection begins? That's where the real argument lives, not in whether we call it "murder."

person is a philosophical term a fetus isn't a person it's a human

Now you're playing word games instead of doing philosophy. "Human" and "person" aren't different categories you can just declare—you're asserting it. A fetus has human DNA, human development, human potential. So what makes it *not* a person? If personhood requires consciousness, rationality, or independence, then newborns fail too. You've smuggled in a definition without defending it. Either personhood tracks biology, psychology, or potential—pick one and defend why your choice matters morally. You can't just say "fetus equals human but not person" and expect that to end the argument. That's where your real burden lies.

they're in a different categories? human is a biological term

Fine, but that distinction collapses under pressure. If "human" is purely biological and "person" is philosophical, you still haven't explained why biological humanity doesn't matter morally. A fetus is biologically human. So either biological humanity has moral weight, or it doesn't. If it does, your position fails. If it doesn't, you're arguing that mere biology is irrelevant to moral status—which means you need a different criterion for personhood. Consciousness? Rationality? Name it. Because right now you're using "it's just biological" as a shield when the real work is defining what *does* ground moral protection. Stop hiding behind terminology.