Round one will be the arguments of my opponent.
Round two will be my arguments against that of my opponent.
Remaining rounds will be further debate on this topic.
I think abortion is a pretty useful thing. People/families that have abortions do so because they don't want the baby. If these people/families did not have the option of getting an abortion then, in some situations, they would have a child without intention to care for it. From a societal benefits perspective this is worthless because it leaves the child in a nurtureless environment. In turn the child is more predisposed to a low quality a life, sparse education, and criminal tendencies.
I'll also say that abortion is mostly a zero sum game for potential life. A family that desires two babies will have two babies irregardless of aborting previous fetuses. Finally I'll argue that abortion is beneficial because it allows more freedom of sexual expression. Studies suggest that having more frequent sex reduces stress levels, promotes inter human bonding, and heightens creativity. Those thing are probably all societal net positives.
The usefulness of things do not outweigh morality. It became a burden of the current situation of our time that looked upon something that was needed. By it not looking if it was right or wrong, but at its convenience. For the act was redefined for business purposes creating this issue. Sex is not something used for pleasure only and by exploiting this natural instinct of man for creating a product like condoms, a pornographic industry and the procedures of abortion. It gives the idea that we should just give up on morality for the sake of the easy way out. As long as you make money for your country no harm is done and it is beneficial. Creating the mindset that allows future businesses to grow on this principal. Dependence once government is on this income the harder it will be to get rid of it. Next is the idea that because it can be aborted we should look upon responsibility as something in that case non existent thus creating lack and increasing desire of it. For now see there is no restrain in usage. There are other ways of relieving stress. The fact that it is so elevated comes from our current system creating it. Also, a factor that allows this to be justified for the necessity and by it ignoring morality. The mindset of this will become a constant that will spread to other areas of thinking. All that not even talking about killing the promise of life and the fact that deceases are the indicator of overusing sex.
Yraelz forfeited this round.
You should have prioritized your debates. Apparently the other ones got you quite busy.
My apologies to my opponent, I incorrectly assumed that this debate had a 72 hour time period. That being said, I would urge the voters to allow my opponent a final response in the comment section. He should not be deprived of a round because of my mistake.
I will win this debate on two levels. First I'm going to argue why abortion is more moral than the alternative. Then I'm going to argue that pragmatism is more valuable than morality and demonstrate that abortions are pragmatic.
My opponent addresses the responsibility of having sex by arguing that abortions allow sex without reprecussions. I will say that this a good thing. Numerous studies suggest that sexual activity decreases stress, promotes bonding, and increase creativity. A world in which we have less reprecussions for the activity is one in which we are happier as a civiliziation and treat each other better. My oponent briefly states that there are other ways to overcome stress. While this may be true, very few of those methods pose all the benefits of sexual intercourse while limiting the personal risk. If Con is to win this argument, he is going to need to demonstrate why sex is intrisically immoral. Barring some out dated, 19th century, mode of thought I doubt a good explanation exists.
Next my opponent argues that "the mindset" will "become a constant that will spread to other areas of thinking". This is a great example of the slippery slope fallacy, in which one action snowballs into many other actions. Since abortions have been existant for some period of time, I'll suggest that emperical evidence disproves this thought. Finally my opponent argues that abortions kill the promise of life. This is true indeed, but it is not a moral issue. In truth every action that is not procreation is precluding potential life. For instance, as my opponent was typing this post he was sacrificing time that could have been used to create babies. In this way he has directly limited the potential of life, but so too does every other action not copulation related. Every moment that we do not attempt to pro-create is a moment of "killing the promise of life." As it is the base state, it does not have a moral affiliation.
Pragmatism > Morality:
Next I'll argue that pragmatic approaches are indeed more important than morality. Morality remains inconsistent from society to society, from community to community, and even from person to person. I've previously argued that without abortions society experiences a low quality of life for children with a nurtureless environment. Since the outcome often has terrible ramifications on society as a whole, we should consider it above the singular morality of each personal action. My opponent talks briefly about killing the promise of life, but I'd say that the more pragmatic factor is the "quality of life." A child born into a family that does not desire it will be precluded, in many aspects, from living a happy existence.
I thank my opponent for his level of debating or perhaps it is my inexperience. Either way I still disagree by the followings. As stated that to much sex will be negative for it should not be used that many times. For the production of sperm is limited and numerous internal complains will arise if overused by both males and females. Let I say that the level of stress is even higher due to the cause of society implementing this pressure like it has over time. Sex will become and escape to relieve this and by it even more used. Now by the earlier mentioned statement of over usage this will show you that your argument is invalid. The situation where this stress reliever is used for its beneficial means is not reason enough to misuse it. For the purpose of sex is to create life any other usage is out of desire or short-term necessity. As my opponent stated another way of relieving it is not as effective. Instead of using that as an excuse why not approach the source of the cause that elevated the stress. Besides there could be other ways of relieving stress since the cause is psychological.
Second point is the argument that every action not procreation is precluding potential life. Some what truth except that the situation is different. Whereas the actual killing of potential life by the act and in the other ways it's indirectly killing it. Like the example of killing people consciously and killing them unconsciously. Huge factor if this was presented in court. For the sentence of both cases will not be the same. Also, by the earlier stated argument that overusing it will cause internal problems with the human body. By that indicating it should not be used too often.
Third point which has the same thinking process as the argument addressed in the previous paragraph. This is linked with the act is not to be used in this way and by it will not create the situation of unwanted results. Highlighting your argument about an unwanted child and by it creating more problems.
Last point is society will experience a low quality of life. Also, close to truth, but not entirely. As the act is redefined in its usage it became a constant. The experience of life is defined by the environment. For this constant is where you were born into will be the norms and values you will forcefully inherit. Also, the act is considered extremely pleasures you will see that the point in arguing about it's usage will cause people to distance themselves from it. Why? For the act is now considered a constant and by overusing it and experiencing intense pleasure one became addicted to it. Also, for the lack of responsibility that was relinquished for the mentioned reasons.
My opponent states is entire case on the benefits it has and by it overlooking the negative ones. For the redefinition of the act and by that result it became a necessity justifying its usage. Which is saying the positive outweigh the negative no matter what it may be.
I thank my argument for the solid responses so far. Once again I urge the voters to permit my opponent one extra response in the comments.
In pursuit of crystallizing this debate I think two arguments can be extended that are fundamentally under covered. The first is that pragmatics is greater than morality. And the second is the unintended consequences of not having an abortion. In a world where abortions are precluded violence increases and quality of life severely decreases. These are indicaitons that I outweigh my opponents advoacy. However, I will also argue each of my opponents new arguments.
Production of sperm is not a moral issue so it probably doesn't count for anything here. Additionally, sperm production is not limited in any definite sense. New sperm is generated every momenet that a male is alive. My opponent says that internal problems will occur if too much sex arises. I'll argue that this doesn't outweigh the increased crime or decrese in quality of life. Also I'll say that my opponent's does not describe the majority of people having a lot of sex. Perhaps it describes the few individuals who do so as their only past time.
Next my opponent argues that sex causes more stress due to societal pressure. This is an argument irrespective of abortion which means it has no bearing on this debate. But also I'll argue that that pressure is directed predominately at media stars and almost no one past high school. This suggests that the benfits of sexual intercourse, which apply to everyone, outweigh Cons arguments.
Con makes brief allusions to sex being misused and its purpose being for creation of life. These are arbitrary distinctions. Sex can be undertaken for any purpose, it does not necessitate life. Also, not enough sex can cause stress.
My opponent argues that accidental murder is a valid analogy. Not true. The reason accidental murder culprits get more lax sentences is because they are not deemed a societal threat. In the case of potential life the culprit knows all actions which will not lead to birth. Which means in both the case of typing this argument, and the case of abortion the preclusion of potential life is premeditated. There is literally no distinction between these which indicates that abortion is not a moral issue.
Con argues here that children born into a society that does not value frivolous sex as much will be happier. I'm disinclined to believe that this benefit exists and/or somehow outweighs the detriments of not being wanted. My opponent's arguments appear to be purely speculative here. Abortion is useful, and beneficial, because it relieves unintended potential life from being born into the world. I've already demonstrated that those individuals have a much lower quality of life and are more predisposed to major crime. This is an impact which effects all people and not just the moral decision of the mother. Therefor this impact of abortions is the deciding factor of the round.
|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:||1||3|