Abortion Should Be Illegal
Debate Rounds (4)
My adversaries response was relativity short, so I am going to keep mine pretty simple too.
By the resolution and first round we can clearly see what we are debating
" Abortion should be illegal"
Illegal is defined as
Illegal - not allowed by the law 
So what I must do to win is show a scenario in where an abortion should legal. Is there is a circumstance that could warrant an abortion, that would mean abortion should remain legal. This is not a debate about whether abortion should be legal in (x) or not legal in (y). This is referring to the fact that abortion is murder.
Premise 1 : Right to self defense
We under US law are permitted the right to defined ourselves from bodily harm, especially in cases that could result in death.
Justifiable homicide - "killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, such as self-defense to protect oneself or to protect another, or the shooting by a law enforcement officer in fulfilling his/her duties. This is not to be confused with a crime of passion or claim of diminished capacity which refer to defenses aimed at reducing the penalty or degree of crime"
There are also stand your ground laws, that give you the right to kill a person in self defense
This is even in certain state statues such as Florida
" A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another" 
Even the founding fathers thought self defense was an unalienable right. 
You even see this in the Constitution
"Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of HIMSELF or the state" 
So we can clearly see that self defense is justified by the law, even if you take another persons life.
Premise 2 : There are Cases where the fetus and mother could die or the fetus could kill the mother
At this point the Fetus is inflicting bodily harm on the mother and threatening her life. We see this in ectopic pregnancies.
Ectiopic Pregnancy - An ectopic pregnancy is a pregnancy that occurs outside the womb (uterus). It is life-threatening to the mother.
"In most pregnancies, the fertilized egg travels through the fallopian tube to the womb (uterus). Anything that blocks or slows the movement of this egg through these tubes can lead to ectopic pregnancy"
In addition to this fatal pregnancies occur all the time in the US. This is true in both the US and World wide. 15 percent of pregnancies result in fatal complications. . Granted it is a low number but it even occurs in the US, per 100,000 births an estimated 21 deaths occur in the United States.
" According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2010, 3,999,386 infants were born in the United States, 3% less than in 2009. The number of births fell for nearly all races and Hispanic origin groups. The birth rate in 2010 was 13.0 per 1,000 people " 
According to the studies provided every 100,000 births result in 21 deaths.
There are an estimated 3,999,386 births that occurred in 2010 according to the CDC. Let's round that up to 4,000,000 flat
4,000,000 / 100,000 = 40
40 * 21 = 840 maternal deaths on a yearly basis in the United States
We can in fact acknowledge deaths happen in pregnancy. Granted I did round up, but even without rounding up it would be over 800.
[a] We have the right to self defense, and can defend ourselves from death and certain harm. This is promised by the constitution
[b] There are pregnancies that can result in fatalities. Around 800 yearly in the US
[c] If abortion were illegal, practicing abortion would be a criminal offense.
[d] This would deny the mother the right to kill the fetus in extreme cases, and violate her right to self defense
[e] Abortion should be legal in the United States.
 For example, Elbridge Gerry asserted that "Self-defense is a primary law of nature, which no subsequent law of society can abolish. (Emphasis added.) [Gerry, "Observations on the New Constitution, and on Federal and State Conventions," Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, ed. Paul Ford, p. 4.]
To begin, my opponent never clarified how abortion is an act of self-defense. Her superficial acknowledgment of it though stated that abortion being illegal would deny the mother the right to kill the fetus in extreme cases. If my opponent could I'd appreciate it if she could list some 'extreme cases.' Furthermore, I agree that all Americans have the right to self-defense, but if my opponent is stating that having a child is an act of aggression, then I can't agree with her at all. Reproduction is the only way we as humans can currently populate the earth and if we as a society deem reproduction as an act of aggression then we have all destroyed ourselves. Next, my opponent goes on to talk pretty lengthily about cases where the fetus and mother could die or the fetus could kill the mother. After that she provides me with some statistics and equations that are appreciated, but unnecessary. Yes, fetuses and mothers can die in the process of childbirth. However, this has occurred ever since babies have been being born. Mothers and children can die during childbirth. As sad as it is, I don't see how this correlates to abortion needing to be deemed illegal. People die every day. People die in numerous ways every day. If my opponent thinks that abortion will solve the deaths of a minority of people then she might as well be advocating the discouragement of childbirth as a whole. So what needs to be understood here is that abortion is the termination of a life and I don't see how that can be a legal institution if people who commit homicide on an older human can be thrown in prison. Abortion should be illegal in the United States because of this.
" if my opponent could I'd appreciate it if she could list some 'extreme cases.'
Essentially extreme cases are referring to cases where the mother and child both could die. Illegal is banning abortion all together and making it a criminal offense. So cases that could endanger the life of the mother such as ecotopic pregnancies and cases where both the mother and child could die, abortion should be legal.
(A) Allowing both the mother and the child to do is both immoral, and just blatantly stupid. If you can save the life of one knowing that they would both die otherwise, there is a perfectly moral reason to have an abortion
(B) If it comes down to a choice, the mothers has the right to self defense and defending her own body.
" ' Furthermore, I agree that all Americans have the right to self-defense, but if my opponent is stating that having a child is an act of aggression, then I can't agree with her at all "
This point is conceded. He acknowledges our right to self defense but states that having a child is an act of aggression. The issue is not having the child, but comes in to play when the child can threaten the life of the mother. At that point per our right to self defense she has the right to terminate the pregnancy to save her own life.
Mothers can die
" Yes, fetuses and mothers can die in the process of childbirth "
He acknowledged and conceded this statement along with conceded we as citizens have the right to defend our body
He has all but conceded this debate to me. When you acknowledge that a mother can die and her body is at risk of death due to a fetus, and then admit that we have the right to defend our body. He has negated his own resolution.
More effective ways than banning abortion
Banning abortion is a monumental cost. Women have and always will have abortions regardless of whether it is banned or not.
" Of the approximately 42 million abortions that do occur worldwide, almost half are performed by unskilled individuals, in environments that do not meet minimum medical standards or both. Virtually all of these unsafe abortions take place in the developing world, where the unmet need for contraception remains high and very restrictive abortion laws often are the norm. " 
This even occurred in the US prior to Roe vs Wade. Assuming that abortion is murder, as my adversary has stated the act of committing abortion illegally could result in up to 15 to life, and or the death penalty if treated as such. The cost to put someone in jail for 15 years equates to around 500,000 per individual and in addition to this. We can also see that if women want an abortion they are going to do it whether it is legal or not. This cost would be monumental and destructive all at once.
There are alternative means to banning abortion such as promoting sex ed and pushing contraceptives.
" A long-term study in St. Louis that offers women the free birth control of their choice has revealed that, amongst other positive effects, the program lowered the abortion rate for the participants. In fact, the results were dramatic. There were 4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the program, compared to a national average of almost 20 abortions per 1,000 women nationally" 
" So what needs to be understood here is that abortion is the termination of a life and I don't see how that can be a legal institution if people who commit homicide on an older human can be thrown in prison. Abortion should be illegal in the United States because of this. "
My adversary is claiming abortion is murder here , but misinterprets the definition of murder. Murder in this instance would be defined by killing an innocent person. The baby is not innocent at this point, he is inflicting harm upon the mother. We are afforded the right to defend ourselves up unto death, if we are at risk of dying or are in peril. This is self defense and not murder in this case.
When my adversary conceded that we have the right to self defense, and that a fetus can kill a mother and harm her he pretty much lost this debate. I have shown how and why we have the right to terminate a fetus under these circumstances and how it can be morally acceptable.
"This debate thus should be judged on what's more moral: the termination of innocent life or the protection of it?"
In the aforementioned scenario in both cases you are terminated a life to protect it. This point is close to a red herring.
(a) You are terminating the baby to save the mother
(b) Terminating the mother to save the save the baby
You are protecting an innocent life by terminating another innocent life. The argument I made was the fact the mother had the right to self defense in this specific instance.
"Furthermore, my opponent states that the unborn baby is not innocent if it is inflicting harm upon the mother. Frankly, I find this point quite ridiculous."
Take into consideration this analogy . Judith Thompson's Violinist Analogy
"You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." 
In cases including rape and the possibility the mother dying, put yourself in this scenario. Is it morally wrong to unplug the cord from him? There is no way to say that it is your responsibility to bear when you have been given an extreme circumstance that you did not ask for. You would be justified in having the right to choose to either save him or end his life. This is morally permissible and feasible under the law.
" My opponent states how abortion can be morally acceptable, yet abortion should never be considered morally acceptable since it is literally the act of ending another human's life when they have not directly harmed the mother and are simply trying to survive "
This is called a logical fallacy
(a) They are directly harming the mother. Because of their presence in the mothers body she could possibly die
(b) Self defense is morally justifiable even if it is survival.
Picture this scenario. You are on a desert Island. There is one can of food left on it. That can of food will hold you over 3 days until a ship can make it to you. If you do not eat you will die. There is someone else holding that can of food and is about to eat it. You know he will not share. Is it morally permissible to save your life?
Or switch the scenario. Is it morally permissible for him to kill you, if you are trying to kill him to survive?
Both of these cases are justified morally. You cannot say abortion is immoral especially in cases of self defense.
" In that sense, my opponent might as well be advocating the killing of the homeless and mentally handicapped "
I am not taking a hard utilitarianism stance, if I am even taking one at all. Taking someones life in self defense when your life in danger, and slaying homeless people for no obvious reason are fundamentally different
My adversary has failed to support his side of the BOP. I have shown that abortion can be morally acceptable especially in cases of self defense, and I have even shown that we are permitted to do so under US laws. We have the right to defend our body when there is something threatening our life.
I have met the BOP and shown how and why abortion should be legalized. I have even went as far as to show how it is morally acceptable. While my adversary has failed to refute in any of my contentions along with not meeting his BOP
The resolution is negated. Abortion should in fact remain legal.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro allowed Con's interpretation that Con wins if abortion should be legal even in one instance. Con successfully proves that abortion should be legal when the mother's life is in peril, which is analogous to self-defense against an imminent attack. Source: Con sourced his claims, Pro did not.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.