Debate Rounds (4)
This debate will be about the benefits, harms, and the morality of abortion. I will be talking about the benefits of abortion, while my opponent either talks about the harms, or immoral consequences of abortion.
Demographics are essential to understanding the real benefits of an abortion. Abortion is usually the better choice rather than going through with the pregnancy:
-42% of women that get an abortion are below the poverty line
-27 percent have incomes within 200 percent of the poverty line.
-Together that makes 69% percent of the women getting an abortion economically disadvantaged.
-Women under 20 account for 18% of the abortions
Having a child for any of these women would create a negative impact on them and the child.
I will be specifically talking about the benefits that the women listed in the demographics would receive from the abortion.
It is hard to raise a child if one is below the poverty line. It takes 241,000 dollars to raise a child. This already creates a negative impact on all women listed in the demographics. 42% of Women that get abortions make less than 23,000 dollars.
You have to think about the negative implications of raising a child when you are below the poverty line. One cannot just have a child. You have to think about:
1. The well-being of the child.
2. Can you provide food for the child?
3. Can you provide food for yourself?
Life below the poverty line is stressful.
One must be able to create a stable income in order to raise a child. Also, the woman who is pregnant also needs to have a stable life, and not drive herself to the breaking point. Single parents must provide greater support for their children while they themselves may feel alone.
Not making a poor woman's life harder.
Making a poor person's objective to create a stable foundation for having children.
Not making the child's life harder.
Not having parent's feel the emotional impact of being lonely.
Contention 3-Harms of not having an Abortion
The harms of not having an abortion effect both the child and the parent. The average cost of raising a child is 241,000 dollars. The actual effects it has on poor families is devastating for everyone involved. Here is an excerpt of a book that gives just a tiny hint on what it is like everyday as a single mom.
"As a homeless, unwed, teen mom, I often wondered if anyone could hear me. Did anyone hear me cry at night? Did anyone hear the screams? Did anyone understand my struggles? Was the pain on the outside of me as loud as it was on the inside? Would we eat tonight or go hungry again?"-By Jennifer Barnes Maggio
Research was done by Jacqueline Kirby, M.S. from Ohio State University which give empirical evidence of the harms of single-parenting.
-Indicates that children from single-parent families live less healthy lives.
-Children growing up with one parent have a higher probability of dropping out of school.
-Trouble keeping jobs as young adults.
-Mother-only families are more likely to be poor because of the lower earning capacity of women,
-The median annual income for female-headed households with children under six years old is roughly one-fourth that of two-parent families.
-Approximately 53 percent of single mothers are not in the work force because they are unable to find affordable, quality, child care
- The majority of these mothers have no high school diploma, leaving them with few job opportunities or jobs that pay only the minimum wage.
-Parents with two or more children often have little money left after paying taxes and child care.
-Single parents experience a variety of stressors related to poverty (i.e., financial, emotional, social).
-Financial strain is one of the strongest predictors of depression in single parents
To start, I will freely concede that it is possible to identify benefits of abortion. Pro has done so in their first entry. The real question is whether such benefits sufficiently justify the destruction of human life. Assuming that Pro agrees with the virtually universal maxim that human life should be preserved and protected, I will focus my case on the immoral consequences of abortion. I will attempt to demonstrate that abortion is a violation of this maxim, and is therefore immoral. As such, the benefits proposed by Pro will not be enough to justify the moral consequences of the act. To do this, I must show that a fetus is indeed human life:
== Case ==
Scientifically, legally, and logically, an embryo should be considered human life.
1. Science overwhelmingly confirms that the unborn, even at the earliest stage, are human. At the first second of conception, the zygote has unique and completely human DNA. Humans have 46 chromosomes with DNA specific to the Homo Sapiens species. All 46 chromosomes, as well as the human specific DNA that comes with them, are present the moment fertilization occurs. According to the book Human Embryology & Teratology, "fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. ".
Even if an abortion happens just after pregnancy is usually detected, the embryo has already begun developing its own unique brain, spinal cord, fingerprints, and heart. By week 6, the arms, legs, eyes, and bones develop. The heart also begins beating . The brain and spine of a fetus are not the organs of some separate sub-human species. They are genetically and fully Homo Sapien. There is not a single scientific argument to justify why a fetus is not a member of the human species.
2. Federal Law - even Federal Law confirms that the unborn are both alive and human. The 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA), Section 1841, says that any action that injures a child in utero can be punished as if the injury was inflicted on the mother herself, even if the offender acted accidentally or had no knowledge she was pregnant. Furthermore, UVVA says, "As used in this section, the term "child in utero" or "child, who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." Incredibly, this means that if a pregnant woman on her way to the abortion clinic gets hit by a texting driver, survives, but loses the baby, then that driver can be charged with manslaughter. Yet, if the woman arrives safely at the abortion clinic, she can "lose" her baby in a perfectly legal and often celebrated procedure. This contradiction borders on the insane and cannot be justified with logic. Federal law grants an unborn child at ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT with rights equal to those of the mother.
3. Logical Beginning of Life - Beyond conception, there is no clear or consistent definition of life's beginning. There are very few people who draw the line at birth - even the most ardent abortion supporter would not advocate aborting 3 minutes before birth. But where then DOES the line get drawn? 3 hours? 3 days? 3 weeks? 3 months? This is a very difficult question to answer since there is no clear answer to be found. If there is no obvious or consistent definition of life, then there is no obvious or consistent time to say abortion is ok. Viability is often used by pro-choice advocates, but this is a largely meaningless term that I'd be happy to address in the next round if Pro wishes.
Since a fetus is human life, and since it is universally held (in general) that human life should be protected and preserved, then any benefits proposed by Pro do not justify this maxim's violation.
I will make more specific rebuttals in the next round.
 O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 8-29
Pro decided to drop my entire argument, so my case stands as valid. It's curious that Pro feels they "have nothing to rebut" because they specifically tasked me to argue in favor of the immoral consequences of abortion in Round 1, which I did. By not responding, Pro has agreed to the following points from my case:
1. Human life should be preserved and protected.
2. A fetus is human life.
3. Abortion is the destruction of human life, which is immoral in accordance with point #1.
4. Any benefits of abortion identified by Pro are not sufficient to justify the deliberate violation of point #1.
The conclusion of points 1-4 is: the moral consequences of abortion outweigh the possible benefits. Therefore, Con's case is stronger than Pro's, Con wins the debate.
Nevertheless, I will proceed with rebuttals.
All the benefits Pro cites in their case from Round 2 essentially boil down to this: a child might have a hard life if born into non-ideal circumstances, and abortion eliminates that hardship. I am not trying to straw man the many complexities of what Pro wrote, but each point (financial strain, poverty, single parenthood, etc...) returns to this basic thought.
My rebuttal to this is that the possibility of hardship does not justify killing a human life.
This argument forwarded by Pro makes abortion a type of mercy killing. At base, it suggests a child is better off dead than misfortuned. This is completely unreasonable. First, there is no reason to believe that a child born into poverty cannot rise and become a successful, productive member of society. Indeed, there are innumerable examples of children rising above hardship to become successful adults. Abraham Lincolin is one such example. Second, if children born into hardship are better off dead, then why stop at the unborn? According to Pro's logic, it would be more effective to wait until the child is born and see how he/she develops. If the poverty and economic strain becomes too much, then we can know for sure if we should kill them.
Obviously, this sounds absurd, but it is the logical extension of Pro's argument if the ultimate goal is to prevent suffering from economic harship. Of course, the distinction is made before birth because a fetus is assumed to be non-human, thereby allowing it to be killed as opposed to a post-birth baby. But, as I've noted, Pro chose to drop my claim that a fetus is a human life from the previous round. Therefore, Pro by default agrees that a fetus is human life. Therefore, there is no distinction between the humanity of a pre and post-birth child, and so Pro's argument can indeed be applied to post-born babies as well, which is absurd. Therefore, my argument stands.
Pro's identified benefits, which portray abortion as a type of mercy killing, are insufficient to justify violating the moral principle of protecting human life. Pro has agreed that a fetus is human life by dropping my argument, and so Pro cannot therefore reconcile this fact with the moral consequences of abortion.
Ariesx forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by illegalcombat 1 year ago
|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||1|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
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.