The Instigator
Guv
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Dookieman
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Abortion should be legalized

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Dookieman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 531 times Debate No: 63894
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Guv

Pro

If a woman does not want/isn't ready for/cannot raise a child, then why should she have to go through giving birth to it? An unborn child doesn't have a birthday, a name, and depending on how far into the pregnancy the woman is, not even a gender, let alone a conscience mind or emotions. If we refuse a woman to choose what happens to her body, we are stripping her of a right that all people are entitled to.
Dookieman

Con

Thanks for your opening statements, Pro. I look forward to our discussion.

Introduction
Before I begin, I should note that I'm Pro-abortion. Meaning that I think abortion is morally permissible. However, for the fun of it, I will be playing devil's advocate in this debate. Today I will be defending two contentions in this debate. The first is that abortion is immoral, and should therefore be illegal. The second is that Pro's justifications of abortion are not satisfactory, and should therefore be rejected. With that said, let me begin.

Future-Like-Ours Argument
Here I will be using Don Marquis' future-like-ours argument to defend the anti-abortion position. His argument can be put forth as follows:

Premise 1) Killing a being with a future-like-ours (FLO) is immoral.

Premise 2) A fetus has a FLO.

Conclusion) Killing a fetus is immoral.

Defense of Premise 1
I believe this view gives us a good reason for why we believe killing other human beings is morally wrong. When you watch the news and hear family members of a murder victim talk about their deceased relative they often say, "he had his whole life ahead of him" or "now she will never be able to walk down the aisle." The point here is that killing deprives us of a valuable future that we would have experienced had our lives not been cut short. This is why we view killing a normally functioning human being without their consent to be one of the worse if not the worse crime somebody can do. Another good thing about this view, is that it avoids absurdities such as ending the life of a human that is permanently comatose or an anencephalic newborn. On the FLO argument, we can simply argue that the permanently comatose and anencephalic newborn don't have a FLO, and therefore it's not immoral to end their lives. This view on why it's wrong to kill other human beings aligns with our moral intuitions. After all, I think very few people actually believe that it would be immoral to end the life of somebody who would never develop consciousness. Lastly, the FLO argument avoids speciesism, which is the view that a being is valuable only because it is human.

Defense of Premise 2
This doesn't really need much defense here. It's quite obvious that the fetus does have a future-like-ours, and that if it was left alone to develop properly, it would have a future filled with pleasurable experiences.

Since both premise 1 and 2 are true, the conclusion that killing a fetus is immoral follows. And because abortion directly kills the fetus, abortion is therefore immoral.

I will now quote some of the justifications my opponent offered in support of abortion, and respond to them.

"If a woman does not want/isn't ready for/cannot raise a child, then why should she have to go through giving birth to it?" -Pro

If she does not want/isn't ready for/cannot raise a child then she can give the child up for adoption when it's born. We shouldn't turn to violence in order to solve our problems.

"An unborn child doesn't have a birthday, a name, and depending on how far into the pregnancy the woman is, not even a gender, let alone a conscience mind or emotions." -Pro

Why do you have to have a birthday or name in order to have moral value? Just because the fetus has no name or birthday, doesn't mean it has no moral value. A human being who is temporarily comatose is also not conscious or experiencing emotions, does this mean it would be morally permissible to end his life without his consent? No, it wouldn't be. Since his coma is temporary, he still has a FLO and therefore it would be wrong to kill him.

"If we refuse a woman to choose what happens to her body, we are stripping her of a right that all people are entitled to." -Pro

The fetus is not a part of the woman's body like an arm or a leg. Because if that were the case, then that would mean half the time women are pregnant, they have male genitals. The fetus does use the woman's body to live, but it's not an actual body part of the woman.

Conclusion
In this paper I have argued successfully that abortion is immoral, and showed that my opponent’s rationalizations for abortion are unconvincing. Since the law ought to make things that are immoral illegal, it follows follows that abortion should be illegal since it deprives the fetus of a future-like-ours. The resolution is negated.

Source:
http://bama.ua.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
Guv

Pro

Before I start:
Hello. I just wanted to compliment the structure of your argument and how well presented it is. I'll try my best, but this is my first ever debate, so I'll probably lose, but that's okay. Anyway, I'll get to it.

Abortion is a choice that is frowned upon in our society. So let's look at some of the reasons why someone would want an abortion. Some of them include:
- The woman was raped and is carrying the rapist's child.
- The woman is in a poor financial state and is unable to raise the child.
- The woman is under the age of 18 and is simply too young to have a child.
- The woman and her partner simply did not try for a baby and the methods of birth control failed.

We have the reasons why someone would want an abortion. Now why does society disapprove of it? Well, here are some reasons why:
- It is considered immoral
- The mother can give the baby up for adoption
- A fetus is a human and terminating it is the same as murder.

Adoption seems to be a better choice than to abort the child. However this is not the case. There are estimated to be 153 million orphans worldwide, and there is simply not enough people to take care of them all. This means the child being given up may never find parents, which can have a severe psychological impact on them later in life.
Abortions are not violent, brutal things. They are safe, clean and performed by medical professionals.

I stated this earlier:

"An unborn child doesn't have a birthday, a name, and depending on how far into the pregnancy the woman is, not even a gender, let alone a conscience mind or emotions."

When I said this, I meant that the unborn lack what all human beings have. This means abortion is not murder, because technically a fetus is not a living, breathing person with memories and feelings. A fetus cannot speak, move, experience, think, feel or do anything that human beings can do. They cannot even survive without their mother.

If we outlaw abortion, we would be forcing women to go through pregnancies they do not want or otherwise are not able to cope with. Could you imagine having to give birth to the child of a man who violated you and put you through a horrible and traumatic experience? What if the mother was only 14? Or if they were living out on the streets?
Outlawing abortion may lead women to find other methods of terminating their pregnancy. They could seek illegal and unethical ways to do so which may cause further harm to both the woman and her child.

I conclude with the following statement:
Abortion is a choice all women should have. It is a choice that we cannot deny. Those who consider going through with one are finding the strength to do so and the negative approach from society does not help with their conscience. We should allow abortion to be legalized.
Dookieman

Con

Thanks for your concluding statements, Pro. Now onto mine.

Introduction

At the beginning of this debate, I said that I was going to be defending two contentions. The first is that abortion is immoral, and should therefore be illegal. The second is that Pro's justifications of abortion are not satisfactory, and should therefore be rejected. With that said, I will now respond to some of the justifications and criticism put forth by Pro in support of abortion.

Earlier in my first round of arguments, I said that adoption was a peaceful and nonviolent alternative to abortion, and that putting a child up for adoption doesn't deprive it of its right to life. However, Pro challenged this claim and said:

"Adoption seems to be a better choice than to abort the child. However this is not the case. There are estimated to be 153 million orphans worldwide, and there is simply not enough people to take care of them all. This means the child being given up may never find parents, which can have a severe psychological impact on them later in life." -Pro

What Pro doesn't seem to realize is that this argument by him could be used to morally justify euthanizing infants that have just been born. To demonstrate this, let me quote him again but this time switch out the word "abortion" with the word "euthanize."

"Adoption seems to be a better choice than to euthanize the child. However this is not the case. There are estimated to be 153 million orphans worldwide, and there is simply not enough people to take care of them all. This means the child being given up may never find parents, which can have a severe psychological impact on them later in life."

You see what I did there? Pro's argument can be used to morally justify extremely immoral things. So it should therefore be rejected.

Later on Pro states that abortion is not murder because a fetus is not a person with memories and feelings. It's true that the fetus has no memories and feelings. However, I don't see why that matters. The reason for that is this. While the fetus has no memories and feelings, it still has a future-like-ours, and therefore to deprive it of this valuable future is immoral.


Conclusion
In this paper I have argued that because a fetus has a future-like-ours, it's immoral to end its life, because you would be depriving it of all its future pleasurable experiences and other enjoyments that come with being alive. Pro has failed to debunk the FLO argument, and has not provided good reasons for the permissibility of abortion. For that reason, we ought to reject his arguments and accept that because abortion violates a fetus' right to life, it should be illegal.
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by jynxx 2 years ago
jynxx
Some people when they find out they're pregnant will feel like they aren't ready, but they will never know if they are or not if they abort the child. Here's the thing. When the mother of the child actually gives birth to the baby, this thing called "motherly instincts" kick in. At that time, they become ready. Everything will make sense, and things will be easy. But again, they'll never know if they abort.
Posted by jynxx 2 years ago
jynxx
Some people when they find out they're pregnant will feel like they aren't ready, but they will never know if they are or not if they abort the child. Here's the thing. When the mother of the child actually gives birth to the baby, this thing called "motherly instincts" kick in. At that time, they become ready. Everything will make sense, and things will be easy. But again, they'll never know if they abort.
Posted by Pfalcon1318 2 years ago
Pfalcon1318
While I would have appreciated some kind of explanation of what a "future-like-ours" looks like, from CON, this was quite a well formed argument. PRO offered no rebuttal at all, and as such this argument stands. Looking at PRO's arguments, there is much to be desired as PRO really doesn't offer too much justification for abortion to be legal. PRO offers some (weak) arguments from consequence, but doesn't provide the crucial link between those consequences and the place of the State in preventing said consequence.

While CON's argument was well-formulated, it does not directly address the resolution. CON offers logical argument for abortions immorality, but nothing for it's illegality. A key premise, left entirely undefended by CON, is the proposition that "That which is immoral should be illegal". CON gives zero support for this hidden premise. At the very least, some justification is desired for it.

CON volunteered to share BoP, bringing upon themselves a need to present positive arguments. Both debaters left something to be desired, primarily a link between the argument they were presenting and the link to the resolution. However, if I grant the hidden assumptions each debater is putting forward (e.g. that the State is supposed to prevent bad consequences and that immoral acts should be illegal) CON has the stronger arguments, especially considering PRO offered no rebuttal to them, whereas CON rebutted a number of PRO's points, though some rebuttals were more adequate than others.

Happy to clarify this RFD.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Pfalcon1318 2 years ago
Pfalcon1318
GuvDookiemanTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: In comments