While I do not believe abortion is moral, I believe that abortion is morally permissible. This basically goes to say to protect the wide arrange of individuals that would have one we need to make it as safe as possible. Also, it must be understood that just like attaining an illegal firearm or drug, the prohibition of abortion would have little to no effect on the amount and in some cases availability of an abortion. In some cases it may be medically necessary and an individual who would otherwise love to have a child is forced into getting an abortion. Finally, many women with dreams of college who are forced to carry their child to term never achieve their fiscal goals and rely on welfare. In the interest of societal safety, decreasing welfare, and decreasing monetary gains of criminal activity we must accept abortion as morally permissible, but not morally favorable.
You might need to clarify your position a bit, given that its a bit open-ended. If I'm reading your opinion right, then you're in favour of legalized abortion in all cases (I'm going to assume up to the third trimester, given that's the general consensus), but that you believe them morally reprehensible. I consider them morally neutral, just as I believe the act of removing a tumour is morally neutral. I don't liken foetuses to tumours, but I use the comparison to illustrate that if there's a living thing attached to you and it will cause you problems to keep it, its best to remove it. It's morally wrong to kill, yes, but zygotes in the womb are not people. If an acorn grows into an oak tree, when you step on an acorn, have you just cut down a tree?
It's not a favourable position, just like abortion isn't a favourable option. I'd be very surprised if there was ever a woman who sprang out of bed and was excited to get an abortion. It's an unfavourable option, but its morally neutral.
To further clarify my position. There should be no punishments for having an abortion even though it is a not the most morally favorable option. It should never be the go to option. However, since it is impossible to stop people from doing back alley abortions, in the interest of public safety, we must accept abortion by choice in order to keep the general public safe and healthy. Strangely, we are on the same page of this debate agreeing that it should be allowed, but not as the go to option. If I am understanding you correctly we are on the same page.
Yes, we do appear to be on the same page. Or at least when it comes to legal issues. Abortion doesn't have to be stated to be the non-preferential option. It already is by its very nature of being traumatic and scary for those going through it.
What I was trying to get out of you as well though is whether or not having an abortion, while we agree it should be legal, is a morally negative act. I don't think so. Like I said, I think it's morally neutral.
Well there are many ways to answer that. My favorite would be te violinist kidnapping. "You wake up in a hospital room. You are then introduced to a world famous violinist and philosopher. You are informed that they are having a vital organ failure and have been placed on a donor list. You are then told that you can be surgically connected for the next nine months without it heavily affecting your normal activities for 6-8 of those months. No one will look down on or blame you if you say no, although the individual will die. You are left to make your choice alone. Assuming that you are their only genetic match possible and no other match would do, what would you do?" I say both options are, as you put it, morally neutral with no climactic problems or benefits to you and conceivably anyone else. Yes no one will ever hear them play in an orchestra again but that will not harm, nor extraordinarily benefit, the world.
Not an unfair example, but the fundamental difference between getting an abortion and as you say the kidnapped violinist is that terminating a foetus isn't analogous to letting someone die. They are both examples of a morally neutral situation, true, although one, to me, appears significantly less ambiguous than the other.
Thanks for the debate, and I apologize I couldn't offer a more stark viewpoint.
Reasons for voting decision: Hum... I don't think the resolution is specific enough to warrant a vote in either direction. There are many facets of abortion which you could be pro on. Abortion is an issue, it's not a stance. At the end of this debate I think the only thing being argued is whether abortion is moral or amoral. I don't think there is enough analysis on either side to prove either point. Thus I give a tie.
Reasons for voting decision: This is a clear win for Pro. Just due to the fact Con offered no rebuttals. The resolution is Pro abortion, or supporting it. Pro stated he believed it was a morally neutral stance, being it is justifiable and should remain legal. Con agreed. The debate was over at this point.
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.