Abortion should legal on request morally
1. Detailing the rules of debate and my opponent accepting.
2. Opening argument for both sides with no attacks on the others case.
3. Open round (attacking the opponents case allowed, rebuilding a case allowed, providing new evidence allowed etc.) but NO NEW ARGUMENTS, only more evidence for the arguments provided
4. Same rules as round 3 except no new evidence, only analysis of previous evidence.
5. Summary speech, no new analysis, only referencing previous rounds and convincing the reader who won the debate.
For my idea of morality, I will use utilitarianism. I use this because it leads to the overall most happiness in life and therefore the most enjoyment for all beings.
Contention 1 - Leads to a reduction in crime
In the 90's, the US saw a drop in crime . People didn't know why this was happening as experts only believed crime rates were going to skyrocket.  The reason for the drop in crime is it was a generation after Roe v. Wade, therefore allowing abortions. When this happened, we saw a generation later kids that were raised in better circumstances by better prepared parents, which lead to an all around drop in crime. Therefore, when we allow for on request abortions, parents are able to raise their kids in better circumstances, allowing for them to be in a higher income group, destroying the stem of crime.
Contention 2 - Better lives for kids
Same logic as contention 1. When parents decide to postpone having a kid, they can better provide for it.  Furthermore, allowing for abortion prevents child abuse for the same reasons . Therefore, having a kid later in life allows for more happiness.
Contention 3 - Better life for parents.
The sad truth is that teens become pregnant, and when they become pregnant, they have to postpone their life at a vital time. When this happens, they have to leave high school and are more susceptible to divorce, meaning they are a single parent, and will often be shunned by their parents . This gives the parents a tough life, something they many times can't fix.
 - Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner
 - http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...
 - https://www.prochoice.org...
 - http://www.priestsforlife.org...
Rationality - The ability to reason
Potentially rational - Having the potential to exercise Rationality later in development.
Actually rational - Having the ability to currently exercise Rationality.
Prima Res: Fetuses are Human, and therefore the act of discarding or removing them is murder.
In order the settle that fetuses are human, one must establish two things,
- What makes a Human?
- Is a fetus human?
In regards to these things, I hold man to be an animal which is potentially or actually rational. (If you disagree with this definition please offer an alternate one in your rebuttal.) At around 2-3 years old a Human child begins to show signs of Rationality. Before this, the child has the potential to reason, and although it does not exhibit this potential it is by the given definition a Human. A fully birthed human child and a fetus are both equally potentially rational, and therefore equally human. Most people consider an infant completely human, but a fetus somehow not. I say that the deliverance of the fetus out of the womb does not in any way give it rationality, humanity, nor the right to live for it was already endowed with these things. Therefore, the killing of a fetus is the same as killing a born child, and both are murder. Because then, abortion is murder is should not under any circumstances be legal.
Im apologize because I forgot to supply one more definition which may have caused confusion in our conversation.
To Murder - To kill an Innoncent Human Being
As opposed to:
To Kill - To cause a living thing to die
For instance, all murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.
Killing an innocent human, is killing and murder.
Killing a cow, is not murder but still killing.
Now, to relate this to your point. No man is perfect, so it becomes difficult to say which men are innocent, and which men are not. But im sure we can all agree that some men are very obviously evil, (Ex, Hitler) and some are obiously not evil (Ex, Babies*). So addressing your main rebuttle directly, Murder is by definition immoral. Therefore the only way the killing of a fetus would not be murder and therefore not be immoral, would be if babies were not innocent, or fetuses were not babies. Babies must be innocent, because by definition they have not developed rationality yet and therefore have not developed the ability to be evil. Also, I established fetuses to be human children, that is to say "babies" in the first round.
*If you disagree, and think babies are evil, Please talk to someone about that.
Also, concerning your point saying that fetuses dont feel pain is incorrect. At only 20 weeks of pregnancy and even before that, the fetus is shown to react extremely to stimuli, including light, sound, annd especially tactile things, such as tools often used by abortionists. In some more horrific cases, when the fetus is observed during the abortion process by means of sonogram, it can be seen trying to struggle and escape the abortionists tools. So, sadly it can be affirmatively said that the fetus does indeed, feel pain.
 Due to the concentration of nerve cells over the fetus' skin, not only does it feel pain, it feels more than an adult will ever feel. http://www.mccl.org...
 Please research evidence of this with viewer discretion.
However, he has not said any reason that we should decide murder to be inherently evil. He has simply said it to be so. I maintain the reasons for murder being evil is that it causes them pain, it prevents them from joy, and it saddens those around them, because those are the negative benefits that come out of something (and if there are no negative benefits, it can't be said to be immoral). These points for why murder is bad stand as my opponent has yet to attack them other than by giving another reason for murder being moral, yet he hasn't provided a reason for why this is, and has used a blanket statement for the immorality. We must understand why we think of murder as evil (the bad things that come as a result of it) and then judge if these are true (which, again, they are not).
He also says that fetuses can feel pain, which is true. However, with my opponents evidence (http://www.mccl.org...), it does not ever say earlier than 20 weeks, only 20 weeks. Furthermore, in the current system for the regulation of abortion (which pertains to this topic), it is not legal to abort after those 20 weeks, and because this refers to how it works in law, it means that fetus's will not feel pain, therefore, it is not immoral.
In summary, because removing a fetus does not meet any of the negative parts of murder, it is not immoral. Furthermore, my arguments in my opening case remains untouched, therefore those many benefits to allowing abortion still exist, so the only effects of abortion are positive.
I will begin my argument by addressing my opponent's first claim.
I was taking the idea that "Murder is evil" as my moral standpoint, and therefore did not attempt to prove it. If he would like a debate on whether murder is evil or not, that is excellent material for a follow-up debate. In the mean time, I will address how abortion is evil in his exclusive moral standing.
He has established his moral view as Utilitarianism, and has made three claims saying why abortion is not immoral according to his view.
He has said, "[W]hen it comes to a fetus, they do not feel pain."
He also claims that, "[Y]ou allow the mother to have kids later on whom will live happier lives."
He finally says, "[Y]ou do not sadden the people around the fetus."
These are the three pillars on which his argument stands, and he claims I have not addressed them.
If my responses were not clear enough before, I will make myself very clear now.
Concerning his first pillar, which I addressed in Round 3, the fetus does feel pain before 20 weeks. In that argument, and the passage I cited, what was being addressed was the extreme awareness of the fetus that far in development. In the first trimester, the embryo undergoes the process called differentiation, in which it develops specialized cells such as blood cells, kidney cells, and most importantly: Nerve cells. Because the embryo has nerve cells, it is able to react to stimuli and feel pain.
Addressing the second pillar, I simply claim that any happiness or relief gained by an abortion can alternately be obtained by an adoption. If you disagree, please provide examples.
In regards to the third and final pillar, the very fact that this debate is going on is proof that the statement is false. Abortion is a major issue in the world, and has caused many on both sides of the argument extensive grief.
I believe I have addressed his claims fully. If you think I have not, please directly explain why in the final round. Otherwise, reserve it for a conclusion.
He hasn't upheld the first one because the very piece of evidence he cites ALWAYS refers to 20 weeks exactly, and even if they were able to before 20 weeks (which he hasn't provided evidence for, but I ask him to in the final round), we could move the law of minimum weeks to earlier in the babies growth.
For the second, an orphan does not live the same life as a non-orphan. They many times will have to stay in an orphanage for much of their life. Furthermore, when we look globally, 60% of girls become prostitutes and 70% of boys become criminals (http://www.orphanhopeintl.org...), showing not only another way there can be an increase in crime, but also shows the torment they're put through.
Finally, if 3rd parties care about the abortion, it doesn't concern them, and their small amount of discomfort is far less than the significant drops in crime.
And now my conclusion
In this debate, my opponent and I have had two different ideas of morality, utilitarianism and murder being bad. However, there is no reason to accept murder to be bad other than the three reasons I stated before, all of which abortions does not fall under. Furthermore, there are many positive benefits as I showed in Round 1. Therefore, I believe that abortions on request are morally beneficial.
I would also like to thank my opponent for a fantastic debate today. I'm excited to see who the voters decide won.
I would like to begin my final word by thanking my opponent for a great debate.
Now, concerning my opponent's claim that his three pillars still stand, I feel very repetitive addressing these again, but obviously it still is not clear.
The fact that fetuses develop nerve cells very early hardly needs to be backed up, but here is my source. At any point when one could identify pregnancy, the fetus can feel pain. So, therefore the first pillar has been compromised.
Secondly, you offered the counter argument that abortion is better for the kids than adoption. Your statistics are correct, and they are an issue, but abortion is no way to fix them. The way these issues should be resolved is by a refining of orphanages. The percentage of orphans turning to crime can be decreased by better orphanage conditions and more opportunity for education. Saying that abortion is a valid way to decrease the amount of orphan criminals is saying those children should have never been born. This approach is definitely not the correct one. All children have the right to life. With this in mind, the second pillar has been compromised.
Onto the third, and final pillar. For my opponent to claim that abortion does not concern any 3rd parties is a ridiculous claim. Abortion is a raging topic across America and has "concerned" the lives of many. And with the reduce in orphan crime enforced by another means, the third pillar has similarly been compromised.
At this point, I have removed all the supports for my opponent's claim:
According to Utilitarianism, Abortion is not immoral.
I have also established in the first and second rounds:
Abortion is Murder.
Now, with my moral standpoint, (as requested) being: Murder is Immoral, I have proven that Abortion is Immoral.
Also, according to my opponent's standpoint: Utilitarianism, I have proven that Abortion is immoral.
 The Constitution of the United States of America!
|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||3|