The Instigator
Jammie
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
LePult
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points

Abortion is wrong and should be criminalised

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2017 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 621 times Debate No: 101931
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Jammie

Pro

I'm arguing from a moral stand point that values human life. I would prefer Con to be pro-choice, as opposed to a nihilist who doesn't care either way. If you choose to accept, waive your first round as acceptance. Thank you and good luck.
LePult

Con

As I'm Pro-Choice, I'm gonna argue why abortion shouldn't be criminalized

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Jammie

Pro

Abortion is morally wrong for a number of reasons, and even certain circumstances do not legitimise it in my view.

We have to start with the question, is human life after birth worth anything?

If the answer is no, than abortion is not a concern to you, and you wouldn't care either way. If it is, and you are pro abortion, then you must reach a point either in development or circumstance where the destruction of the fetus is justified.

For example, if you consider an unborn fetus not worthy of life at all, then what about premature births? If the fetus is delivered prematurely, it is considered human if it survives, but during the same stage in development, and it is unborn, it could be susceptible for abortion.

Of course, this may not be your view, in which there are only two options remaining.

1. You believe human life begins at conception, and therefore agree with my view.

2. There is a cut-off point in terms of development as to what constitutes human life, and what is worthy of human rights.

If your answer is 2, there is a fundamental error in your reasoning. The only way to instate a law regarding development is to base it on a set time period on when abortions can occur, and anything after that point is murder. This is the problem with this solution:

In a hypothetical scenario, a fetus is close to it's termination deadline. Let's say it's April 8th. At 23:59 on April 7th, destroying that fetus is no more legal or morally wrong than plucking a hair from your head, as that fetus isn't recognised as a human life. So you could get the abortion on April 7th at 23:59, no problem. How is it right then, that exactly one minute later, that would be murder? How can one minute decide the legitimacy of human life? In that split second between 23:59 and 00:00, the entire moral and legal standing of that fetus goes from morally worthless to the highest value ever issued in our communities and legal system. Nothing special happens in that split second, nothing drastically changes withing the fetus that somehow makes it eligible for human life. So, if it is valued at 00:00 and then onwards forever, but is worthless before hand, it must also be valued before that, at conception at least.

The problem is with the whole 23:59 --> 00:00 scenario is that it is illogical to attribute worth to something over a millisecond where nothing changes.
LePult

Con

Before I begin, I think I need to clarify one thing. The Question 'What is life' is complicated, but a fetus definitely is 'life'.
This doesn't mean that I exactly agree with your view.

Is abortion morally wrong?
There are two answers.
1. Killing humans is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. This means that abortion is sometimes morally right, sometimes morally wrong, and often, it's somewhere in the gray area/between both.
2. Killing humans is always wrong, but in a moral dilemma, it is the lesser of the various options available. This means abortion is always wrong, but sometimes it is less wrong than the other options

Both ways abortion is still a very difficult decision. You can't say that every abortion is right or that every abortion is wrong.

Whether abortion should be illegal is another topic, as it isn't the same argument as the ethical of whether or not it's right to have one. Lots of things that are morally wrong are and should be legal.
If you want to argue about this as well, you can just post your argument for it additionally in the next round, as I'm really bad at starting debates.
Debate Round No. 2
Jammie

Pro

I see now I wasn't specific enough. For simplicity's sake, let's just focus on the morality of abortion, and not the legality.

'Killing humans is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. This means that abortion is sometimes morally right, sometimes morally wrong, and often, it's somewhere in the gray area/between both.'

I agree with the first part of your statement. I believe killing a human should only be done to prevent the killing of other humans, for example a terrorist is about to blow up a building (with people inside it), so do you shoot him dead before he pushes the button? I would say yes. However this moral ambiguity cannot be applied to the fetus. An unborn child is the purest form of innocence that exists in this world. Of course, we do not know for sure as they do not have the capacity at that stage in life for committing evil or good, but we must assume they are innocent as our justice system is innocent until proven guilty.

'Both ways abortion is still a very difficult decision. You can't say that every abortion is right or that every abortion is wrong.'

I can say every abortion is wrong, as every unborn child is 100% innocent, and therefore doesn't deserve death in any circumstance.
LePult

Con

I'm just gonna rebut your arguments as I don't have much to add in the moral standpoint on abortion.

"However this moral ambiguity cannot be applied to the fetus"
Let's apply both answers, which I provided, of the question "is abortion morally wrong?".

1. Killing humans is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.
Let's get an extreme example: An 11-year-old in a medically dangerous pregnancy that resulted from incestuous rape. Looking at this morally, many people (not all as moral is subjective) will conclude that an abortion is 'clearly" a morally right decision.
Just for the completeness, here also is an example on which many people will say, that abortion is 'clearly' morally wrong: Married parents in their late twenties abort, because they wanted a boy instead of a girl.

2. Killing humans is always wrong, but in a moral dilemma, it is the lesser of the various options available.
Let's use the first example again: Aborting the fetus is morally less wrong than for the girl to die or commit suicide trying to bring a baby that will have no support.

You already said in your 3rd round that the fetus is innocent and therefore shouldn't be aborted, so I'm gonna assume that you are still opposed to this.

So let's get another example which is not related to abortion, that could convince you, that in this case it doesn't matter/matters less, that the child is innocent, as it is a moral dilemma.
Let's assume a plane with 200 people is hijacked by terrorists and is aiming for a stadium filled with 50.000 people. You are flying a jet fighter to stop the plane by destroying it. Simplified: You sacrifice 200 innocent people (the fetus) to save <50.000 innocent people (the 11-year-old).
Of course the 200 people are innocent but the value of the 50.000 people is higher as their deaths are preventable.

I will relate to your statement and conclude what I've just said (and also said in the 2nd round) " I can say every abortion is wrong, as every unborn child is 100% innocent, and therefore doesn't deserve death in any circumstance."

"every unborn child is 100% innocent, and therefore doesn't deserve death in any circumstance."
This is absolutely right. Still this doesn't conclude to your point, that every abortion is wrong.
You can't generalize every abortion, as the morality surrounding any given abortion has to do with the specific circumstances of that abortion, not the procedure itself.

Or in other words "Abortion is still a very difficult decision. You can't say that every abortion is right or that every abortion is wrong." (2nd round)
Debate Round No. 3
Jammie

Pro

I will rebut your answers as well, as I also have much left to say about the morality of abortion.

'Simplified: You sacrifice 200 innocent people (the fetus) to save <50.000 innocent people (the 11-year-old).'

The problem with this hypothetical analogy is that you are regarding the fetus as worth less than the mother, as it is only worth 200 lives vs 50,000. I believe the fetus is worth equal to the mother. But that is partially irrelevant, as the main focus of your point is unsafe pregnancies.

'An 11-year-old in a medically dangerous pregnancy that resulted from incestuous rape. Looking at this morally, many people (not all as moral is subjective) will conclude that an abortion is 'clearly" a morally right decision.'

To me the age, fact the pregnancy was a result of incest, and of sexual assault do not matter to the worth of the fetus. I feel that if you truly value the fetus then circumstances should not change whether it is a life or not, and this can be a problem with some pro-lifers. The disgusting and horrific circumstances of the pregnancy do not devalue the fetus in my opinion. I think it's illogical and wrong to make it okay to abort just based on the crimes of the child's father. Human life must always mean human life, regardless of the circumstances, otherwise what is human life worth? So in my eyes the sickening specifics of the pregnancy are irrelevant to the value of the fetus.

In a situation where the mother's life is in danger, I believe that the correct steps should be taken to ensure the maximum life saved. Consultation with a medical professional is necessary in this scenario. I don't think that a fetus is worth any more than any other human, so like I said, anything to ensure maximum life at the end of the scenario is needed. This to me is my only logical standpoint, as I believe an unborn fetus is a human life, and I also believe that all human life is equal.

'You can't say that every abortion is right or that every abortion is wrong." (2nd round)'

This I can agree with. I don't think the fetus deserves special rights just based on the fact it is unborn, and in my eyes every abortion is a human death, but it depends on the situation. Like I said before, I think the paramount reason for abortion should be saving human life, and not the circumstances which birth leaves the mother in.
LePult

Con

1. "The problem with this hypothetical analogy is that you are regarding the fetus as worth less than the mother"

I was trying to get a realistic scenario, and by that didn't notice that the analogy didn't fit the circumstances of an abortion
So I'm gonna change the example accordingly, which still should result in the same decision (shooting down the plane/abort):
A plane with 200 people is hijacked by terrorists and is aiming for a stadium filled with 200 people.

2. I provided two approaches to the question "Is abortion morally wrong?"
I'm assuming the next part of your round is referring to the approach "Killing humans is sometimes right and sometimes wrong"

"To me the age, fact the pregnancy was a result of incest, and of sexual assault do not matter to the worth of the fetus. [...] So in my eyes the sickening specifics of the pregnancy are irrelevant to the value of the fetus."

You convinced me in one point. An abortion is never clearly morally right or wrong but always 'in the gray area'/'between both', as there are always people who disagree, because moral is subjective.
This means the first approach (Killing humans is sometimes right and sometimes wrong) is doesn't apply to abortion and is made invalid in this debate.

Following that, there is only the other approach remaining:
Killing humans is always wrong, but in a moral dilemma, it is the lesser of the various options available.

And it seems that you now agree with me, that it is not the case, that every abortion is wrong/"abortion is wrong", as stated in the heading. It seems like that, because the last statements of the 3rd and 4th round conflict with each other.
So although I neither consider myself nor you the clear 'winner' of this debate, I'm glad I could convince you to change your view by a bit.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by LePult 1 year ago
LePult
That are the two approaches you can get to the question, if killing humans is wrong.

The first one is the approach which the laws in most countries take with murder, manslaughter etc..
The second is that in a moral dillema you must do the lesser wrong thing although it is still kind of wrong.

Obviously you can't "take" both approaches at the same time, but you must decide for yourself which one "fits" better with your perception of moral.

In the end of the debate I recognized that the first approach doesn't fit to the issue of abortion, which just left the second approach.
Posted by Volmire 1 year ago
Volmire
@LePult, your two premises are directly contradictory.

"1. Killing humans is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.
2. Killing humans is always wrong,"

An action cannot be both always wrong and sometimes right.
Posted by Richard_Lyman 1 year ago
Richard_Lyman
Should be legal under certain circumstances, like if your baby has some horrible genetic disease that would cause endless suffering but not jus because of an unexpected pregnanccy.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
Abortion a crime. What if the problem is abortion is not the crime the self-incrimination confession suggests, and the democratically held majority's belief is in fact making the wrong argument in defense. The crime does not relate directly to just the woman and a choice that might be made.

How great would an impartial Judicial separation be, if only a majority of any given democratic group could voted on the crime a person is allowed to commit, or a single crime a person would be charged with?
Posted by Jammie 1 year ago
Jammie
missmedic that is a topic for another debate.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
What would enforcement curtail?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
JammieLePultTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by QueenDaisy 1 year ago
QueenDaisy
JammieLePultTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The motion seemed to consist of two notions- that abortion is morally wrong, and that abortion should be illegal. Both parties failed to address the latter. Con presented a version of the "unexpected hanging paradox" when they asked why it would be okay to abort it at 23:59 but not 00:00- this reasoning is clearly fallacious. Con attempted to justify abortion on Utilitarian grounds. Though I don't feel either party was particularly convincing, I feel like Con must have been more so at the two debaters essentially agreed that abortion is a "gray area"- that it is sometimes wrong and sometimes right. The motion was that abortion is [always] wrong, and so I would consider this a concession on Pro's part.