RE: Not all debates are created equal
The purpose of debate would be to formulate a sensible policy to govern a society; as such, any meaningful debate would be exchanges between governing members of a society. In a representative government, usually referred to as "democracy," the theoretical governing interests are the entirety of the populace, which complicates discussion of any issue. Within a smaller set of governing body, similar ideas and beliefs are generally shared amongst the members. In the general population, there is very little that is shared. Thus, morality and values do hinder discussion, as you outlined in your post.
Policy decisions, however, can not be solely based upon statistics and facts, since the impact of the policy must seem fair to those it applies. Without moral considerations, the policy can be rejected as being amoral by those who disagree, and it may be their moral duty to oppose amoral policies. The issue of fetal personhood that you invoke in the post can not be resolved without consideration of moral beliefs of the debaters. Even with our scientific advancement, science has not given answer to the fundamental question regarding origin of consciousness or life. By what measure do we determine a person to be a person? Is it intellect, consciousness, or genetic make-up? There was a time when entire segments of humanity was deemed to be less than a person based on scientific data of IQ. Although morality can be a hinderance in practicality, it is nonetheless, an important consideration.
Not at one point in the article did I mention removing morality as a debating consideration.
Questions of morality are very debatable the problem is when people bind morality to the thoughts of a unicorn. The views of a unicorn should have no place in the position of morality. Even though someone's moral stance can be built upon the supposed unicorn view, that source is not able to be entered as supporting evidence.
Questions of morality must be discussed from an earthly view. Otherwise the debate can never proceed for amorality can be used as a defense at every turn and there is no defebse against the claim.
Unfortunately for you, the unicorns say you are wrong...
"Questions of morality must be discussed from an earthly view." The assumptions inherent in your statement are that 1) there are objective moral principles and 2) that the reason alone can arrive at the objective moral truth. The modern Western mind seems to readily accept that fundamental moral principles are somehow universally shared among humanity. Objective observation of the human condition and history will argue against such assumption. Morality is deductive process like mathematics; certain fundamental principles and values need to be assumed, not reasoned, prior to discussing moral problems. The fundamental assumptions are either religious, cultural, or opinion. Without invoking unicorns, God, flying spaghetti monsters, moral discussion is nothing more than two apes screeching at each other, since neither side has any more legitimacy than the other. Common religious or cultural consensus on fundamental principles is a priori necessity in any discussion regarding moral problems.
My assumption is that morality is a practical issue subjective to the person. A moral stance need not have consensus of any kind with any one other than the self. It need not be taught but it will be learned as experience and belief in the meaning of that experience will form view points that will influence action. No one else need agree.
And this is the issue. Once unicorns come into play, there is no consensus as even though people may think they agree with another, there is never a perfect fit and under detailed investigation, consensus will be lost. It is like taking the Christian view of morality? Which Christian view? Which group, (one of) the books, the individuals interpretation, how the group on average behaves or how an individual within the group behaves?
This is why moral views can be introduced but cannot be used to create a rule, for (likely) no rule can cover all possible standpoints.
My point is that in a debate, introducing information like 'unicorn thoughts' means that the debate digresses into nonsense as it is a position that cannot be questioned. Much like the word from one of the many Gods.
Btw, I am glad that you have taken the time on one of my posts. Few do.
Your foundational principle is that there is no objective moral truth. If all morality is subjective, then it is just opinion. I can understand that perspective. Then morality is not an issue regarding controversial issues, only pragmatic considerations of enforceability, burden to the state, and potential social unrest. There is a case to be made regarding social and political policies to be strictly pragmatic in consideration. Usually, the stability of the State becomes the overriding concern in such policy decisions.
Perhaps an issue arises too commonly where the view of the state or majority enforces adherence to a moral stance to be a member of the group and punishment for non-performance. I would suggest that there probably are 'rules' of moral uniformity that all humans could agree to but I think it would only be possible for each individual to discover in themselves.
Forcing behaviours, even those deemed good, I see as quite a violent act and will always be met by different forms of resistance.
You seem to be quite interested in this topic and have probably spent a lot of time both learning and thinking it through. It is nice to be a part of as you are also willing to listen and reconsider, even if the consideration does not lead to a change. I tink this is becoming rare in the echo chambered and confirmation biased world in which we live.
Thanks again.