Abortion should be illegal?
Debate Rounds (3)
Round 2 Arguments
Round 3 Rebuttals
Just to be clear, I am taking the position of Con, as in the position against the debate title.
C1. Abortion is murder
Upon fertilization, a human individual is created with a unique genetic identity that remains unchanged throughout his or her life. This individual has a fundamental right to life, which must be protected. Jerome Lejeune, the French geneticist who discovered the chromosome abnormality that causes Down syndrome, stated that "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion... The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence."
C2. Fetuses feel pain during the abortion procedure
Maureen Condic, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy and Adjunct Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine, explains that the "most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex," is developed by eight weeks gestation, and adds that "There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester."  According to Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, "If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain."  Bernard N. Nathanson, MD, the late abortion doctor who renounced his earlier work and became a pro-life activist, stated that when an abortion is performed on a 12-week-old fetus, "We see [in an ultrasound image] the child"s mouth open in a silent scream... This is the silent scream of a child threatened imminently with extinction
C3. Abortions reduce the number of adoptable babies
nstead of having the option to abort, women should give their unwanted babies to people who cannot conceive. The percentage of infants given up for adoption in the United States declined from 9% of those born before 1973 to 1% of those born between 1996 and 2002.  As a result of the lack of women putting their children up for adoption, the number of US infant adoptions dropped from about 90,000 in 1971 to 18,000 in 2007.  Around 2.6 million American women were trying to adopt children as of 2002, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services.
People who declare their own morally absolutes often find themselves re-wording them or altering them to accommodate real, sincere exceptions to their own sweeping, generalized absolute statements. For instance, when someone says, "Killing a person is bad" they most often exclude killing a criminal in the context of defending their own life or their family. In the case of abortion, declaring ALL abortions should be illegal is to exclude those cases where abortion may be necessary to save the life of the mother. The morality of abortion changes drastically when the mother's life is in peril, especially when she is pregnant due to a rape incident. The morality of the debate is further stretched when that rape incident is a case of incest.
This is a case in Paraguay of a 10 year old girl being impregnated by her step-father. She is being denied an abortion. However, there are most definitely going to be many complications to carrying this pregnancy full-term; this child may lose her life. Now imagine if this was a case of incest. Someone may say, "Oh, these cases don't happen that often, or I'm only talking about the majority of abortions." If that is so, then the absolute needs to be adjusted. As it is, though, Pro must defend the stated resolution: Abortion should be illegal. Which means he must defend all types of abortions including these less common cases involving super young mothers, rape/incest, and cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy. If Pro fails in adequately defending the stated resolution then he loses the debate.
In full disclosure, I am against the concept of "convenience abortions." I believe the easier we make the process for women to have an abortion, the more popular and used it we become. I believe that people should be more diligent in preventing an unwanted pregnancy rather than just assuring themselves that an abortion is always available. I do not believe aborting a fetus in the the majority of cases, however, I am a reasonable person and also believe that sometimes there are cases that warrant a special concession. I believe the mother should choose whether to carry a child in a situation where she is at risk of major injury or death. I believe all children who were raped by the dads or step-fathers should not be forced to carry a child full-term. This choice to carry the fetus full-term or not should involved many people. More than one doctor, more than one specialist, all immediate family, and for those that are religious: ecclesiastical councilors, leaders, prayer, etc. These very tough, moral questions are not clear-cut. The absolute that Pro is defending is not morally acceptable. There exist special circumstances that abortion IS acceptable and SHOULD be legal.
Brad19992 forfeited this round.
Anyway, time for my rebuttals:
1) "Abortion is murder"
I agree that many abortions could be considered murder, whether by law (late term) or whether by personal morals. But, again, this is another example of how unspecific absolutes can either be a mistaken declaration or an indication of incomplete understanding of the subject. See my argument above. If Pro is right, ALL abortions are to be considered murder, even cases in which tiny, pre-teen Paraguayan children are forced to carry a baby full-term after being raped by their step-fathers. Keep in mind that there is a high probability that the process of pregnancy and birth will kill this little mother or in the very least permanently damage her body.
Pro stated that life begins upon fertilization. It really doesn't. Life beings upon implantation. So many fertilized zygotes (egg fused with sperm) pass through the system without implanting into the uterine wall, naturally. The zygote without implantation is no more relevant than an unfertilized egg. See definition of implantation here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...(human_embryo)
Most oral contraceptives, as well as other types of contraceptives, affect the thickness of the endometrium (lining of the uterus). Without a place to implant, fertilized eggs pass out of the woman. According to Pro, this effect of contraceptives is deliberately ending the life of the zygote, it is immoral and brings about the same result as abortion. Should we really consider taking oral contraception as murder? See the link below:
2) "Fetuses feel pain during the abortion procedure"
This subject is a tricky because over the last few decades the official science on the matter has changed. It used to be considered, with limited information and trials, that pain could not be felt by any fetus. With this erroneous belief they would perform surgery on babies born during the second trimester. The survival rate was low, then someone decided to start using anesthetic for these surgeries. Suddenly survival rates were up in the high 70s bad 80s. Since then much study has been given to the topic of fetal pain. The currently accepted, researched scientific stance is that it is unlikely that an unborn child can perceive pain until the third trimester. See link:
The movement a fetus makes in the womb in response to the hostile stimuli of sharp instruments and such can be contributed to reflexes; reflexes that do not need a brain to function and do not produce pain in and of themselves. Think about how your knee jerk reflex works. The nerve runs up your leg, enters the spinal cord and leaves the spinal cord to the activate the rectus femoris muscle. Yes, there is a branch that runs up to your brain just to inform the rest of the body about what just happened, but in a fetus this particular branch is not fully developed. The connection between the thalamus and cortex is incomplete. So, movement alone is not a definitive indicator of pain. And honestly, the whole abortions-cause-the-fetus-pain argument really undermines the pro-life position and is a really weak provision in a debate. We declare the life of a person (whether born or not) to have intrinsic value. Most abortions are for the sake of convenience, and ending a life to simply avoid responsibility is immoral. If we focus on pain as a central factor, then society will just start anesthetizing the fetus before aborting it, and there goes a central pillar in our pro-life position. So I would waste time by bringing up the pain argument it just distracts from our stronger arguments.
3) "Abortions reduce the number of adoptable babies"
Yeah, I guess this is true, but just look at how many children are looking for loving homes and still no one adopts them. Until the adoption rate approaches upper nineties in percentage. I don't think we have to seriously worry about this issue.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dan40000000 1 year 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||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
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.