Abortion is completely moral
Debate Round Forfeited
bfchrisb has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||6 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||277 times||Debate No:||94622|
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Argument (no rebuttals)
Round 3: Rebuttals and further argument
Round 4: Rebuttals (no arguments)
Looking forward to a debate.
I though we should begin with a brief overview of pregnancy and fetal development. There are three trimesters in a pregnancy each three months long. From the moment of conception to the eighth week the cells are called an embryo. By month three the fetus is "fully developed" as in everything is present but not necessarily functional. By month 5 hair has been grown and muscles are beginning to be developed. By month 6 finger prints are visible and the fetus can respond to outside stimuli by raising its hear rate. At this point if the baby is born it may survive with intensive care. By month 7 the fetus can respond to stimuli and is beginning t store fat. By month 8 the brain is developing at a faster rate and the fetus can see and hear. By month 9 the fetus is nearly a fully formed newborn.
I think abortion isn't immoral for two reasons
1: You can't kill something that isn't alive. Many people use the argument that a fetus/embryo is a separate being with a different DNA code than the mother and thus is another living human who has his/her own rights. However, take teratomas for example. They too are clumps of human cells with different DNA than its host so shouldn't it have rights too? When making laws blurry lines like these can't be incorporated. To continue, it's extremely hard to decide whether or not something is alive. Being alive is a very complicated concept that even science can't neatly define.
2: Keeping abortion legal helps protect the mother's right to bodily autonomy. If someone is brain dead and a perfect organ donor the hospital can only harvest if the person signed up to be an organ donor or they can locate the closest family member to give permission to harvest. Being pregnant, although temporary is much like donating your organs to the baby. If abortion was illegal the state would effectively be forcing a mother to donate her organs. If abortion was illegal a pregnant mother would have less rights than a dead body.
First, it means that you believe that the human fetus has no value or rights, after all, it is considered completely moral to end its life.It means that you would agree that it is morally correct that the mother and father of a baby, or fetus, get to choose its worth. If a mother wants to have the baby, then society accepts that it is a life, and only then agrees that it has a right to live, so much that if you where to murder it, you would be charged for homicide on behalf of the unborn baby, despite the fact that it is not technically a living being. Yet if a mother says that she doesn't want the baby, then it loses all worth, how does this make sense?
And lets agree on something, there are circumstances in which having an abortion is definitely immoral. If I were to believe that abortion is completely and always moral, then I would agree that it is okay to have an abortion if I wanted a boy and found out that the baby was a girl. Would this be moral? Of course not.
I agree that by saying abortion is moral it means that a fetus has no value. Although you didn't mention it many pro-lifers (not saying you are one) argue that a fetus could become a world leader or a surgeon ect. I would like to add to my argument the fact that potential=/=value. To further this argument, technically we could all have been these amazing people but, the fact is many fetuses who get aborted would have grown up in an unstable environment with unloving parents. I doubt anyone growing up in this type of situation would become an important person.
My rebuttals by paragraph:
1: I agree that by saying abortion is moral you say that a fetus has no value or rights. As I discussed above potential=/=value. I disagree with your statement that the parents get to decide the worth of the fetus. For example, a hoarder might consider a rotten orange to have value but it obviously doesn't. "If a mother wants to have the baby, then society accepts that it is a life, and only then agrees that it has a right to live." I will guarantee you that if a pro-choicer is pregnant and wants to keep it doesn't want it to be aborted but doesn't consider it to have a right to live. You will find that whether or not a person thinks a fetus has a right to live lies with their stand on abortion not whether or not the parents want to keep it. "so much that if you where to murder it, you would be charged for homicide on behalf of the unborn baby, despite the fact that it is not technically a living being." The law that you are referring to I disagree with completely. I find it contradictory with the rest of US law. To the government a fetus isn't a person until it is born, unless it is murdered without the consent of the mother. I know it's ridiculous. "Yet if a mother says that she doesn't want the baby, then it loses all worth, how does this make sense?" I think we have established that the fetus has potential not worth. Just because the baby isn't wanted it doesn't change its worth. Regardless of the parents thoughts and wishes a fetus is worthless.
2: The circumstance you laid out is completely moral, although highly unlikely. If the parents were so serious about having a boy that they resented their child for being a girl I think it would be the right choice to abort. I think a child would prefer to not even exist than to grow up in an unloving environment.
You also claim that gender based abortion is completely moral. And that they would be better off dead than to grow up in an unloving household. First of all, there is adoption, second, you have no right to speak on behalf of them. Lets say that there was a way to figure out of a baby would be gay, would an abortion be moral, of course not. Parents should not be able to deny life based on their opinions alone, that is completely unethical and further supports my claim that they choose the worth of the fetus. And to say that the circumstances are uncommon is wrong, as this happens all the time in China and Iran.
And again I say, that if you believe that a fetus has no worth or right to life, then if I kill it without harming the mother, I should be allowed to go scot free, no problem right?
My only argument that I would like to add is that in most cases, abortions are used simply for convenience, not often in other cases.
And your claim that children born in unstable environments can't live well is completely unwarranted. There are thousands of people whose parents were drug addicts or simply didn't love them that go on to live normal lives. And again, you are no one to speak on behalf of them.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
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.