Abortion. Yes or No?
Debate Rounds (4)
Aborting is not murder. The embryo/fetus is unborn, and it will not affect anyone. If it is not already out of the womb, and into the world, they are NOT alive.
It should always be the mother's choice on whether they want the child, or if they do not. What if they were raped? What of the sex was drunk and unwanted? What if their boyfriend left her after getting pregnant? What if the mother wasn't financially stable to care for the child? Protesters are trying to shut down abortion clinics, but what if the mother dies if she gives birth? There are so many factors to pregnancy, and the mother shouldn't have to suffer through the pain of childbirth if she doesn't want to, or doesn't deserve to.
I will start by saying that under the prior circumstances, it is an immoral act, and while a women does have the right to voice in most other cases, the case of abortion involves the determination of whether or not a life can happen. I feel that since the unborn child cannot speak for itself, it should be defended. If there is no reason to believe it will have any health abnormalities, where to we gain the right to deny its right to life? Isn't the right to life a constant value? Why should one get to take it away for their own convinience? I understand that having a baby is no easy task, but I still believe the baby has the right to live regardless.
Now, I know many pro choice people often question the governments authority to "control what a women does with her body" but this is analyzing actions without intent, the action would be preferably avoided, given the circumstance didn't happen, but the only reason they would step in would be to insure the unborn citizen their God given right to live.
Things to note: I hope to make later rounds with more solid arguments, but I didn't have much time and preferred to get this up and running, so I hope you don't mind.
Also, my use of the term "God given" does not symbolize a religious take on this argument, it was simply word choice, so I hope to keep my religion (Christianity) out of this. I hope people understand they don't have to be Christian to know people have the right to live
I have refrained of my own choice from first round rebuttals, as I find it rude to do to a new debater.
The mother shouldn't have to have the baby, even if she wasn't raped. It is ALWAYS her choice.
I know this was short, but aborting the baby doesn't do anyone harm. If anything, it's making life easier.
There's already plenty of people on earth and not having one will not be the end of the world.
"There are plenty of people on earth and not having one will not be the end of the world."
Of course, under the condition that only one abortion will ever happen. Well, as of July, over half a million abortions have been taken in 2016 alone, more than one. Of course I know you are referencing individual cases, and of course, it won't be the end of the world for us, but it will be for it. "The embryo has no emotion" By that logic, I can stomp on chicken eggs with no moral reprecussions, after all, they have no emotion.
Again, when you bring up infringement of choice(a right) you must realize that people should lose rights when those infringe on others rights, like the right to live.
Even if there were over half a million abortions this year, that doesn't affect the current population. They are unborn, it isn't dropping the population numbers at all. And if you feel the need to stomp on chicken eggs, go for it. If you don't want the chickens to live, or if they aren't healthy enough, stomp on them as you please.
You keep bringing up the right to live argument, but the babies who are aborted are unborn. They have no rights. Aborting them doesn't affect anyone.
Of course, you agree there are cases where it would by no means be moral whatsoever to do, not that any case involving both being healthy is EVER moral. But what if someone used this system to abort a female baby, simply because they wanted a male baby, you are fine with this?
Also, while I could care less about the affects it has on population, I don't understand your math, you seem to think it would be the same, but of abortion wasn't allowed in 2016, half a million more lives would be able to be fulfilled. Now, why didn't they deserve life. I urge you to think of them as people, not numbers, as most would. Why is life more valuable outside of the womb than in the womb.
If the person is sexist enough and doesn't want a female baby, go ahead. I don't care. It's not my child, it isn't affecting me.
Do you think doctors record a newborn before they're into the world? No, they don't. It's because there's no trace of them on Earth, and they're not fully people yet. Even if there were another 0.5 million on Earth, there just isn't, and it doesn't affect the current population because they were never here.
Simply untrue. It is growing and developing, it is alive.
In reply to your claim on population, I don't see why it matters really, but still what you said made no sense. If thy were alive, it would have affected the lives of others, fact.
This is all I have to say, thanks for the debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.