Abortion should be legal
Debate Rounds (5)
pardon my delayed response, I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this debate.
ladies and gentlemen, what is the definition of 'legal'?
legal [adj]: permitted by law.
Well, we could have seen that one coming. But the point of this is that if abortion would be illegal then there won't be ANY exceptions to that rule, no situations will be fit for an abortion legally. The structure of my argument is three-fold. One will be dealing with the morality of the action itself, the second one will deal with special exceptions and the third one will deal with how far legal actions can go. In order to win the debate my opponent must not only prove that there is no morally acceptable situation in which abortion is the answer but also that the best way to fight abortion is with legal constraints, he must defend ALL RESOLUTION CONDITION that I'll put forth. With that in mind, let us move on to the first section:
Is it morally correct?
Let's picture a scenario: you're young, your free and you just finished any and all educational paths that you wanted to finish. You, being a dreamer, want to travel the world and experience things you've never experienced. You want to love, to be loved and to enjoy life to the fullest. This little fantasy isn't so far fetched and sounds rather enjoyable, right? Now, let's say that I come along and say: "You're not allowed to go anywhere" and tie you to the house. You're stuck, cannot enjoy life, cannot chase your dreams and forced to sit around the house doing whatever needs to be done. you never live because I said that you had to stay in your home and are not allowed to leave. Did I violate your right? Is it morally correct of me to obligate you to abandon your dreams? Of course it isn't. But this is happening every day everywhere and we cannot deny that.
But what if we replace me in the story with an infant, a child? Is it still morally incorrect? forcing a woman to have a child she does not want and therefore effectively "tying her to the house" is just as bad as barricading the door. It's her body and legally obligating her to follow the law and denying her the right to chose is just as wrong as the opposite pole. Why should we focus on the rights of the child, a random group of cells that do not posses self-awareness, cannot think, does not feel and in no aspect is more of an human than any of the bacterial clusters that live in your intestines over the rights of the living mother that HAS a life. The person that is currently self-aware and sentient? what makes the child more important than the mother and/or the father that will also indirectly be tied in this? Resolution condition 1: If my opponent cannot properly defend that the unborn child is more worthy of rights than the parents he has lost this debate, take note of that dear readers.
A child is not a human anymore than a blueprint is a house. it has all the potentials to be a house, but it isn't a house. demolishing an already built structure just so the blueprint gets a chance to be a house as well is absurd. Abortion is just as moral as violating human rights, which would you rather choose?
Is it never acceptable?
If we circle back to the definition of legal: something not permitted by law. Does this mean that there are no valid exceptions? We must assume so, because no matter what happens doctors are not above the law. If the mother isn't in grave danger the operation itself would become illegal and thus won't be performed. Isn't this reasonable? but wait, what about the two situations already described by my opponent?
"the only reason to have a abortion is if you are raped,[or] the mother's life is at risk if she gives birth. "
So, we have two situations where my opponent concedes that abortion might not be such a bad thing. IF the mother's life is in danger the doctor in question has to perform the operation as part of his civil and professional duty. It is in his power to rescue the woman, he is obligated to do so. So we both concede to this point; The doctor is above the law if her life is on the line. However, we do not agree on the former situation: If a woman is raped her life is NOT in danger. She is scarred, she is violated and she is filled with sorrow, anger, fear and disgust, but she isn't in danger. Why is it now suddenly ok to go above the law? Why should she be excluded and why should we go against the right of the child?
This leads us to the first major contradiction in my opponents case. When we're not talking about rape a fetus has potential, it might live a great life, could be given away to an orphanage and has rights that must not be violated, its murder. But when the child is a result of rape, it has no potential? What makes this child right less? It had nothing to do with the rape, it's not it's fault. Why should it be discriminated against when some other fetus has all the rights in the world? Does the history of the father make this child any worse? Is it evil and deserves to die because it has a rapist father? It's the same child, it has the same rights.
Resolution condition 2: If my opponent cannot defend the paradox that a child that is the result of rape has less rights than any other child, he has lost the debate.
Is legal banning a solution?
The law is meant to be broken. This isn't something that is generally supported or correct, but it is still so. The harder we press to ban a certain matter the more active it gets. You can look at drug abuse and prostitution to see that. It's still peaking again and again, underground it flows like water and we cannot stop it, we cannot monitor it. Whatever is banned becomes black market material. Abortion is no different. Abortion is LEGAL and still over 700.000 die from ILLEGAL operations. If abortion is banned illegal operations will only increase, will only spiral out of control. When something is legal we have a chance to monitor it, tax it and make sure safety regulations and health conditions are always met. with abortion becoming black we can no longer monitor it, it becomes hidden, unsafe and dangerous. Think clamping the limbs and dragging them out is bad? Sticking a metal coat hanger inside the genitalia of the woman and scraping the child out is much worse and the child STILL dies. Which leads to the final condition:
Resolution condition 3: If my opponent cannot explain how illegal operations can be dealt with in a safe efficient manner, he has lost the debate.
Dear readers of the debate, I have specified why the resolution "Abortion should be illegal" cannot work, and why it contradicts itself. I have presented my opponent with three vital questions that his entire case must rest on and I wish my opponent to properly answer them; for abortion is more than just a selfish act that allows parents to party a bit longer into the lifetime. Abortion is a tool to aid us in preserving our own human right, our own power to control our own bodies and not be bound to the house by someone that cares not what we think. Abortion is a basic human right, and making it illegal is not an option.
Laurier forfeited this round.
I extend my arguments
Laurier forfeited this round.
if you're going to make a 5 round debate at least be present when it is your turn to argue...
Laurier forfeited this round.
My opponent has a single round to make his grand comeback.... extend
Laurier forfeited this round.
Readers of the debate, either my opponent has conceded or simply didn't expect to get any challengers and left his single round intact. he has not answered any of my arguments, he has not fulfilled nor defended the resolution and the key notes I made on the resolution and set as a condition on the victory of my opponent have not been answered and stand strong. He failed to provide us with any worthwhile arguments against abortion. I already pointed out the fallacies within his case and he builds his facts on moral reasons instead of actual logic and/or facts that support his side of the debate. Thus it must be clear that abortion should remain legal for all women, and give them the right to their own bodies.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
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.