Abortion, except for in life or death cercumstances is immoral or unethical.
Debate Rounds (5)
I will gladly accept this challenge from my opponent.
My opponent has stated he cannot see any real good reason for aborting a foetus accept for life or death circumstances. So I am glad he agrees on this, as after all the mother does deserve to live.
My first reason why I think abortion is moral and ethical is quality of life of the child. If the parents cannot afford the child, then its quality of life can very negatively affected, and it can be argued that the child may be better of never been born. For example ,the child could get sold into prostitution (slavery) or on the other hand the child could get adopted by a loving family.
Is this a choice my opponent is willing to let happen though.
I hand the debate back to my opponent.
The child's quality of life is a very good point on my opponents side, yet who would decide what the level of quality of life etc. My second point is that why should we get to decide whether or not it would be better for the fetus to not have been born in the first place, why not give it he/she a fighting chance in our world. Also the parents fiscal can not play a roll in the decision because of a number of circumstances, including adoption as my opponent pointed out, or in the case of Chris Gardner, struggling with homelessness wile caring for his son, became a very wealthy man after taking an internship as a stockbroker.
I think my opponent has shown as I did in my first argument that abortion or quality of life is highly dependent on the parents. While it is easy for us to brush this aside and say it should not be a deciding factor for abortion, I don't believe it should be that easily put aside. To live in a society of perfect programs that look after unwanted children (i.e. adoption, homeless shelters, orphanage's) then we can say yes, there is no reason for abortion. However, this is based on the perfect world system which is beyond the stark realities that exist in most third world countries. (1, 2) Additionally, 80% of the people in the world live on less than 10$ a day.(3) In other words 80% of the worlds population lives in a reality beyond what most of us consider acceptable.
With this knowledge of poverty, we have to also accept the fact that quality of life is not always an option for unwanted children. That is why we have child labor, child prostitution etc. (4, 5) which happens in not just third world countries, but first world countries as well. So while my opponent says who should decide what the quality of life etc is, I think most people would agree that an essential part of life is actually been able to live your life and not be enslaved.
My opponent also brought up an introduction to a point I wanted to make in this debate, and that is why should we be able to decide whether or not a foetus should be born. I can think of a few illnesses that warrant abortion of a foetus like Edwards syndrome,(6) AIDS,(7) congenital heart defects,(8) etc.(9) If we do not abort these foetuses then all we are doing is giving this person/child a year or more of excruciating pain. This may make some people happy, but is it right? Is it right to make an infant suffer in pain, so we can pat ourselves on the back and say we respect life. If that is respect I want no part of it, if anything it is downright despicable behaviour.
Back to my opponent.
I agree with my opponent you did say abortion should be allowed in life or death circumstances. However in some of these cases I mentioned the baby is viable and can live for one day,one week, one month or one year and then dies due to the congenital problem.(1) In the case of HIV, they experience life, but have the burden of never been able to have children themselves or in many cases never been able to experience sexual pleasure.(2) So in this case it is not a matter of life or death, it is a matter of is this life of pain/inconvenience worth it? So in this case you say it should be the mothers choice? This means in effect you are changing your premise for abortion as stated in the debate,as like I said in some cases the baby is viable, but will live in suffering.
I just want to make clear at this point that I am not advocating in anyway to take away a women's choice for abortion. If a women wants to not have an abortion and have a child that will die within a month of birth that is her choice. I think it is cruel and despicable, however that does not mean I do not afford her that right.
The quality of life issue is again where my opponent and I disagree. My opponent has said in the last round and I quote: "Also again with the life quality we can not say that someone would have rather not been born at all than having been born and becoming some form of slave. At least they will have had the privilege of experiencing the so precious gift of life". Now I agree life is precious, and I love my life everyday. I also agree with my opponent that there is always hope for a better life. However would I love my life if I was forced to have sex everyday for someone else's financial gain? My answer in this situation would be no. Additionally, how often do we hear these hopes stories? Often and they are always touted by media and pro life advocates, however the truth is this is a very small minority of cases.(3, 4)
This is why I think we need to think rationally about this, as poverty is something most people cannot comprehend as they have not lived in the poverty that some people live in. Everyday my opponent (I believe as he has the Internet) and I go to the bathroom and turn on the tap and get clean water. We go to the toilet and we can flush the waste away, we can turn the light in our room on when it gets dark so we can read our printed books. In poverty stricken areas, there is no bathroom, there is no clean water, there is no sewage treatment, there is no electricity, there is no printed books. So when we judge and say at least these children get to experience life, how are we defining life. The mother of this unborn child has a far greater appreciation of what life is in these circumstances. Out of respect for the unborn child they may decide to terminate the pregnancy, and should we deny them this right?
Back over my opponent
Thanks to my opponent for their rebuttal, but there are a few things I need clarity on.
I am not sure exactly what you mean when you say about congenital birth defects "But I must say that in such drastic circumstances the mother would most likely not have the choice to have an abortion, or at least a clean abortion that would work properly, and in these circumstances they may not even have the rational to want to have an abortion." Why would the mother not have a choice? Late term abortions are done all over the world in situations like this. Additionally, please could you also please explain to me what "a clean abortion that would work properly" is. This is an extremely vague statement,and I would like some clarification on this, as most abortions that I know of are effective, especially when they are been done for things like congenital birth defects. Then you also said" in these circumstances they may not even have the rational to want to have an abortion." What does this mean? It makes no sense, I would think it means that if someone knew their child was going to die in a month of birth they would be very rational. However, I am not sure if this is the correct interpretation of this last sentence.
It seems that my opponent agrees with me though on this congenital birth defect argument, which means that my opponent does agree that abortion is valid in circumstances which are not life or death. Like I said some congenital birth defects can lead to life outside the womb for a month. Even when we apply a narrower criteria of life and death circumstances for the foetus.
Regarding the quality of life argument. My opponent said that "since we can not get into their mind we can not decide what they would want, as in being born or not." That's why I said in my round three argument that " The mother of this unborn child has a far greater appreciation of what life is in these circumstances. Out of respect for the unborn child they may decide to terminate the pregnancy, and should we deny them this right?" So it seems that my opponent agrees with me about this, or am I misinterpreting what he is saying.
I also have to take issue with the closing statement of my opponent which said "our brains essentially adapt to survive, so they may very well enjoy life more than never having been born." While the survival instinct is inherent in animals so they can pass their genes,I am still not sure how anyone could say a slave or child prostitute is having a good life.
Back over to my opponent.
I would like to thank my opponent for a lively debate.
It seems that even with the admission by my opponent (that he should have made the argument more clear) that he does agree that abortion is valid in circumstances other than life or death. The example I gave of congenital birth defects leading to early death my opponent was willing to accept as a valid reason for abortion.
While we still disagree on the quality of life issue, I think this comes down to a determination of the infants/adolescent/adults life quality which can never be pre-determined. This for me is something the mother should be able to decide as she live in the situation and chances are the babies life may mimic her own. My opponent disagrees as he says life can get better, and I also agree with him on this. However, most often than not it does not get better. (1)
I took this debate up as the question formulated is in my opinion wrong and detracts from important abortion issues. While my opponent agrees he should have defined his debate better I think even titles like this can make people lose focus of the bigger picture. Abortion is valid in circumstances other than life or death of mother or foetus and I believe I have shown this in my debate.
Again thank you to my opponent for a fun debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lordgrae 3 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: Neither were mean, and both of their spelling and grammar were acceptable. However, pro basically agreed with what Con was saying, and made far too many concessions on his position. Con also had better sources and more of them.
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.