Abortion is A Moral and Should Not Be Restricted
Debate Rounds (5)
Second, third, fourth rounds: Arguments upon opponent's statements.
Fifth: Closing argument
Abortion is considered one of the safest medical procedures, along with being ome with almost no consequences of injury. It also is right since it is the woman's body and that the fetus was not born yet. And for also being since we kill animals, what is the difference between a human and a deer? Only our brains if you are speaking of logical difference.
My morality is not based on religion, but philosophy.
John Stuart Mill writes the following about utilitarian morality.
"The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it: and so the other sources of our experiment. In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it. If the end which the utilitarian doctrine proposes to itself were not, in theory and in practice, acknowledged to be an end, nothing could ever convince any person that it was so. No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness. This, however, being a fact, we have not only all the proof which the case admits of, but all which it is possible to require that happiness is a good: that each person"s happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons."
My morality is based on utilitarian morality, or the process of maintaining maximum happiness.
Fetuses may not be humans, but they have the potential to become humans.
Why is killing an adult human wrong? Because you take away their future, and thus their potential for happiness.
In fact, aborting a fetus could be considered worse, because the fetus has more left of their life to experience happiness in.
Thus, if the fetus is a danger to the mother, it is still immoral to abort it because the mother is less likely to experience as much future happiness as the fetus.
There are cursory instances in which the fetus may have a genetic disorder that prevents it from living a normal life, but these are rare and do not outweigh the majority.
Over to pro.
Fetuses are human, based on the DNA, so they are by nature in the Homo sapien genus. Potential for happiness? That is odd. If life is only for happiness, why do we kill rapists and murderers? What you are saying would mean all convicts would have to be free. Thus, they can be happy committing crimes.
I don't see how it can be worse. How do you know they will be able to take their first breath. For all we know, the fetus could be dead upon childbirth, meaning a life that has not taken place yet.
So happiness is only important upon life expectancy? If the fetus is a danger to the mother, the mother surely can abort it to save her life.
Not really. Genetic disorders are quite common. That is why we have diabetes, asthma, cancer, etc.
Yes, the fetus may be dead on childbirth. But this is once again a rare occurrence, and by no means sets the standard.
Happiness is important on quantity and quality. The fetus has more of life to live than the mother, so it is moral to allow a risk of loss of part of the mother's life rather than a certainty of loss the entire life of the fetus.
Genetic disorders may be common, but debilitating ones that prevent a happy life are not common.
No it isn't. Fetuses are born dead everyday. The meaning of rare is something that doesn't happen often or hard to come by.
And how do you know. The fetus may be born alive but could die the next year. That doesn't make sense. Why choose something not guaranteed to live over something that can and possibly be in agony for months?
Also not true. A lot of people have mental illnesses caused by that which is debilitating. Schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, autism, etc. Also, diabetes, asthma, and cancer as previously stated are genetic disorders that ARE debilitating.
The fetus MAY die the next year but again, this is not likely. Look. Would you rather take away part of someone's life or their whole life?
Schizophrenia, depression, and anxiety are not genetic disorders.
Autism, diabetes, and asthma are not debilitating.
Cancer can be treated.
DonovanMGwinn forfeited this round.
In most cases abortion prevents an entire life with the capability of being like ours.
Any possible benefit to the mother is not worth it because she already lived a portion of her life.
Debilitating disorders are too rare to set the standard.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 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:||3||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Utilitarian philosophy is based on maintaining maximum happiness of society. If fetus has much more potential to do bad than to do good (which is the case if his parents do not want him), then you get rid of it by utilitarian philosophy.
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.