The Instigator
stacyamosss
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Philocat
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Abotion should be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Philocat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 715 times Debate No: 67586
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

stacyamosss

Pro

1. Abortion is about allowing woman the right to make choices about when they want to have children in relation to their age, financial stability & relationship stability. It is the not the place of government to legislate against woman's choices.

2. Raising a child is not an easy task & requires social & emotional commitment coupled with financial resources. As such if a person feels they are not ready for a child, it means the pregnancy is unwanted & resultant allowing a fetus to grow into a child is worse than abortion since the resultant child will grow in a non conducive & destructive environment without the love, care & stability that a child needs.

3. The argument against abortion is a moral argument which is subject to personal interpretation so should not be legislated against. Those see it morally allowable to do abortion should be provided with the means to do so & those who don't believe in abortion should have the choice not to have an abortion

4. A fetus is not legally or scientifically a person or human being so abortion cannot be equated to murder or taking a life since the fetus is not a person nor alive.

5. A fetus is like a brain dead person with no self awareness or consciousness so it is actually dead.

6. Prohibiting abortions doesn't stop abortions, women would simply seek abortions via illegal means which are unsafe & illegal, so it is better to provide woman with safe & legal ways to do an abortion.

7. Abortion prevent unwanted & unplanned pregnancies which prevents child neglect since the mother does not want to have children at that moment in time.

8. Making abortion illegal is also a class struggle since the rich can always go to other places where it is legal & have an abortion whilst the poor cannot do this, but have to resort to unsafe abortions

which can lead to their death.

9. Making abortion illegal is more or less compulsory pregnancy which contradicts the quest & fight for freedom.

10. Making abortion illegal will increase teenage pregnancy (children having children). This usually leads to illegal abortions which can lead to death or permanent health defects, poverty, joblessness,

hopelessness, and dependency.

11. A woman's right to choose abortion is a "fundamental right"

12. Personhood begins at birth, not at conception. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy (fetus), not a baby. Personhood at conception is not a proven biological fact. Fetuses are incapable

of feeling pain when an abortion is performed.

13. Access to legal, professionally-performed abortions reduces injury and death caused by unsafe, illegal abortions.

14. The anti-abortion position is usually based on religious beliefs and threatens the vital separation of church and state. Religious ideology should not be a foundation for law.

15. Modern abortion procedures are safe. The risk of a woman"s death from abortion is less than one in 100,000, whereas the risk of a woman dying from giving birth is 13.3 deaths per 100,000

pregnancies.

16. Access to abortion is necessary because contraceptives are not always readily available. Women need a doctor's prescription to obtain many birth control methods, such as the pill, the patch, the

shot, and the diaphragm.

17. Abortion gives couples the option to choose not to bring babies with severe and life-threatening medical conditions to full term.

18. Many women who choose abortion don't have the financial resources to support a child.

19. Motherhood must never be a punishment for having sexual intercourse.

20. A baby should not come into the world unwanted. 49% of all pregnancies among American women are unintended. Having a child is an important lifelong decision that requires consideration,

preparation, and planning.

21. Abortion reduces crime. Teenage girls, unmarried women, and poor women are more likely to have unintended pregnancies, and since unwanted babies are often raised in poverty, their chances of leading criminal lives in adulthood are increased.

22. Do we have the right to force the mother to keep the baby solely because she consented to participate in these sexual activities? Do we have the right to take away another"s right as we continue to fight for other rights? Why do we take away the rights of a woman because she has the potential to have a baby?

23. We get right to life, liberty & pursuit of happiness when we are born. he fetus does not have these rights until it is born. So abortion is not murder & abortion does not go against the rights of a

fetus since it does not have any until born.

24. Every woman has the right to do whatever they want with their body aka Bodily Autonomy.

This is one of the reasons why it is illegal to take organs from the deceased that have not signed off permission. If we continue this right after life, why do we strip it from a pregnant woman? Why

would you grant a dead person a right that you wouldn"t give to someone that is alive.

25. If someone needs something donated that you have, you are not legally obligated to donate anything. This parallels to pregnancies because a fetus does need these resources, but the mother is

not legally obligated to keep giving this baby her resources. Denying to give someone a body part is not illegal, so terminating a pregnancy should not be illegal

26. Legal abortions protect women's health. Legal abortion not only protects women's lives, it also protects their health. For tens of thousands of women with heart disease, kidney disease, severe

hypertension, sickle-cell anemia and severe diabetes, and other illnesses that can be life-threatening, the availability of legal abortion has helped avert serious medical complications that could have resulted from childbirth. Before legal abortion, such women's choices were limited to dangerous illegal abortion or dangerous childbirth.

27. Being a mother is just one option for women.* Many hard battles have been fought to win political and economic equality for women. These gains will not be worth much if reproductive choice is denied. To be able to choose a safe, legal abortion makes many other options possible.

Otherwise an accident or a rape can end a woman's economic and personal freedom.

28. Even when precautions are taken, accidents can and do happen. For some families, this is not a problem. But for others, such an event can be catastrophic. An unintended pregnancy can increase tensions, disrupt stability, and push people below the line of economic survival. Family planning is the answer. All options must be open.

Abortion should be part of a country's contraception policy. People should plan their families & society must allow women to end unwanted pregnancies, in order to deal with failures of birth control.

Some methods of contraception in fact amount to abortion during the very earliest stage of a pregnancy.

Abortion should be legal but discouraged. Legal simply because it is a choice, and what grows inside your body is yours. But discouraged because there are other more effective ways to prevent pregancy than abortion like contraception.
Philocat

Con

I will begin by stating my argument against abortion, and then respond to my opponent's points.

To clarify, I will be arguing that abortion should not be legal, apart from cases where it is a necessary medical procedure in order to save the life of the mother.

Why abortion should be illegal

My argument is as follows:

Premise 1: Abortion is the deliberate killing of a human foetus
Premise 2: A human foetus is alive, and so therefore a human foetus is a living human being
Premise 3: It is not morally justified to remove the life of a human being
Premise 4: Only that which is morally justified should be legal
Conclusion: Abortion should not be legal

Now I will support my premises:

Premise 1

Abortion is defined as:

'Expulsion from the uterus of the products of conception before the fetus is viable.'
(1)

We know, due to the definition of 'viable' in this context, that this procedure will necessarily kill the foetus.

Therefore, abortion is the deliberate killing of a human foetus.

Premise 2

First I will affirm that a foetus is alive, then I will use this conclusion to affirm that a human foetus is a human being.

Life is defined as:

'The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death' (2)

Foetuses grow and are subject to continual change preceding death (3). They have the capacity for reproduction given time to develop naturally.
Furthermore, to suppose that a foetus is not alive is to either state that a foetus is dead or inanimate. It is not dead because something must have once lived in order to be dead, and it is not inanimate (4).
Therefore, a human foetus is alive.

All life is characterised into species (5), and as we have affirmed that a human foetus is alive we must also accept that it must belong to a particular species. A human foetus's genetic makeup is most similar to the genetic makeup of the species homo sapiens and so a human foetus is human (which perhaps goes without saying, as if it was not human then we would not refer to it as a human foetus).
Therefore, a human foetus is human.

Therefore, a human foetus is a human life, which is to say that it is a living human being.

Premise 3

To say that it is not morally justified to remove the life of a human being is to say that we ought not to kill human beings.
There are many reasons why I am justified in asserting this moral truth:

Rule Utilitarian approach - Having a rule stating 'do not kill human beings' will result in a greater amount of happiness than the absence of such a rule, therefore this it is moral to abide to this rule.

Deontologist approach - Killing of a human being is wrong because it is a maxim that cannot be universalised; no rational human being would freely consent to live in a society that permitted the killing of human beings.

Evolutionist approach - Permitting the killing of human beings is evolutionarily disastrous, for obvious reasons.

The killing of human beings is not morally justified according to the vast majority of normative ethical theories. If my opponent disagrees and argues that killing of human beings is justified (aside from cases of self-defence), then she will have the burden of proof, as she is making the positive claim that killing of human beings is morally justified.

Therefore, it is not morally justifiable to remove the life of a human being.

Premise 4

Although it seems pretty common-sensical that only morally justifiable actions should be legal, I will analyse it under the main normative ethical theories in order to demonstrate why only morally justifiable actions should be legal.

Rule Utilitarian approach - Having a rule stating 'legally permit immoral actions' will result in a lesser amount of happiness than a rule saying 'legally prohibit immoral actions', therefore this it is moral to abide to the rule that we should not legally permit immoral actions.

Deontologist approach - Legally permitting immoral actions is wrong because it is a maxim that cannot be universalised; no rational human being would freely consent to live in a society that permitted immoral actions.

Evolutionist approach - Permitting immoral actions will create a society where immoral actions are prevalent, this will negatively effect the quality of our offspring and so it is not evolutionarily beneficial.

I assume that my opponent agrees with premise 4, but if not, the above analysis verifies it.

Therefore, only that which is morally justifiable should be legal.

As I have now asserted the veracity of all my premises, the conclusion deductively follows.

Therefore, abortion should not be legal.

Argument from Consistency

In order to hold a rational moral assertion, it must be consistent.

So, in order to be rational, we must abide by the maxim:

'Treat someone as we would consent to be treated if we were in the same situation as that someone.'

An example of moral inconsistency would be stating:

'I am morally justified in throwing sticks at my mother, but I would not consent to having sticks thrown at me if I was in the same situation as my mother'.

I argue that abortion is inconsistent according to these terms. To assert that abortion is morally justified is to be morally inconsistent, as it is equivalent to saying:

'I am morally justified in killing a human foetus, but I would not consent to being killed if I was a human foetus.'

Unless, of course, the pro-abortionist would consent to being killed if they were a human foetus, but I highly doubt they would be serious in holding this conviction.

This becomes especially prevalent because it is not hypothetical, as everyone was once a foetus and so nobody can be exempt from the consistency criteria.

As asserting the moral permissibility of abortion is inconsistent, it is an irrational moral belief.
It is absurd to suggest that actions should be legalised if one cannot be rational in supporting them, so abortion should not be legal.




I will now respond to all my opponent's arguments within the character limit I have.

'Abortion is about allowing woman the right to make choices about when they want to have children in relation to their age, financial stability & relationship stability. It is the not the place of government to legislate against woman's choices.'

It is definitely the government's choice to legislate against women's choices if the choice harms another human being, as abortion does. It would be odd to suggest that the government should not legislate against murder simply by virtue of the fact that a woman chose to commit it.

'Raising a child is not an easy task & requires social & emotional commitment coupled with financial resources. As such if a person feels they are not ready for a child, it means the pregnancy is unwanted & resultant allowing a fetus to grow into a child is worse than abortion since the resultant child will grow in a non conducive & destructive environment without the love, care & stability that a child needs.'

'Abortion prevent unwanted & unplanned pregnancies which prevents child neglect since the mother does not want to have children at that moment in time.'


I agree, but this is a false dichotomy. A baby can be put up for adoption at birth, so it is not a choice between abortion and raising a child.

'Those see it morally allowable to do abortion should be provided with the means to do so & those who don't believe in abortion should have the choice not to have an abortion'

This statement has very strange implications, as it implies that anyone should be allowed to do something so long as they believe that they are morally justified in doing so. Yet this would mean that we should allow murderers who believe that their actions are morally justified to commit murder.

'A fetus is not legally or scientifically a person or human being so abortion cannot be equated to murder or taking a life since the fetus is not a person nor alive.'

See premise 2 of my initial argument.

'A fetus is like a brain dead person with no self awareness or consciousness so it is actually dead.'

Definition of dead: 'Having lost life' (6). A foetus has never lost its life (irrespective of whether it ever had life) and so cannot be dead.

'Prohibiting abortions doesn't stop abortions, women would simply seek abortions via illegal means which are unsafe & illegal, so it is better to provide woman with safe & legal ways to do an abortion.'

If one freely chooses to murder their foetus then they are, to some extent, forfeiting their protection.
Let me suppose an analogy; legalising burglary would make burglaries much safer for burglars, yet this is hardly a valid justification for legalising burglary. The same applies with abortion.
I agree that prohibiting abortion does not stop abortions altogether, but it reduces them significantly. In 1969 (when legal abortion facilities were implemented) there were 53643 abortions compared to 21400 when abortion was illegal in 1966 (7). This is 32243 abortions that were caused by the legalisation of abortion.

I have run out of characters now, but I will finish rebutting my opponent's arguments in round 2.




(1)http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
(2)http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
(3)http://www.babycentre.co.uk...
(4)http://www.webmd.boots.com...
(5)http://en.wikipedia.org...
(6)http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
(7)http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...
Debate Round No. 1
stacyamosss

Pro

stacyamosss forfeited this round.
Philocat

Con

*sigh* why can I never get anyone to debate me on this topic..

I extend all my arguments to give my opponent another chance to respond.
Debate Round No. 2
stacyamosss

Pro

stacyamosss forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
stacyamosss

Pro

stacyamosss forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
stacyamosss

Pro

stacyamosss forfeited this round.
Philocat

Con

The debate has ended with my arguments standing.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
Please formulate your argument better (not in a listed manner) and I will accept in a few hours.

Oh, and welcome to the site.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Welcome to the site.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
stacyamosssPhilocatTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
stacyamosssPhilocatTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: It was looking like a decent debate until Pro ff'd. Con's arguments went uncontested, so arguments to Con. Conduct to Con for Pro's round forfeits. Con's sources were strong enough to deserve source points.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
stacyamosssPhilocatTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff three times, so I don't see how arguments can go to her, especially since since she didn't respond to Con's last argument. Conduct as well obviously goes to con.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
stacyamosssPhilocatTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF