If an abortion can be justified in any way
Debate Rounds (4)
When a woman is violated sexually (raped), and the man fails to deploy any birth control method, such as condoms, or medication for the woman, she, most likely, becomes pregnant.
Abortions are the only way the woman can remove the child.
It is wrong to legalize a rule that states all pregnant woman must give birth to their child, since the raped women did not have a choice in its conception.
Also, Pro-Choice allows for the woman to make the choice.
They can choose to keep the baby, or not.
By banning abortions, you infringe on their rights a human that can make their own choices.
For the point Con made about murder, I will try to think this through myself.
The whole argument about murder is based on the idea that the thing being killed is human.
The point of view Con is arguing from would say fetuses, and embryos would be considered human.
If this is so, why can't sperms be considered humans as well? They're technically alive, just like fetuses.
Using this logic, then it wouldn't be just banning abortions, it would be enforcing laws to prohibit masturbation, and also wet dreams, because they're alive too. You can't just throw them into a garbage can, leave them lying on your bed, or throw them into a toilet.
So, back to the argument at hand, the point I was trying to make is that murder is the conscious ending of someone's (human) life for malicious reasons, like hate, or apathy, but if we decide that fetuses are human, since they are technically alive, and part came from a human (or excuse me, is in a human), then following that logic shouldn't, sperms, and eggs be kept in the same regard as a human?
This is ridiculous, since murder causes remorse, since it is a deviation from our morality (or moral compass, or God's law, or whatever belief fits into the parameters of morality), and people don't feel anything when they leave their sperm to die. Correct me if I'm wrong, Con. (Which is the whole point of this, now that I think about it)
Com also says, "it is murder to kill a fetus because of the fact that the fetus has the potential to be a human."
He then went on to state that sperms do not have the potential to be a human, or at least by themselves.
So, what is a sperm, to Con? If it isn't human, what is it? And what is an egg? If that's not human as well, what is it? and how can you create a human out of the combination of the two?
I think Con would agree that a sperm is alive (I'm excluding the egg, since I have yet to understand the workings of the ovary, and I do not want to make false assumptions, but I am pretty sure it is alive).
If a single-celled organism is alive, a sperm is as well.
A sperm can create a human, so it must have some human DNA.
It should be wrong to kill it then, right?
I do hope Con elaborates on what he means by, "sin", since the Bible is hardly a great book to use for moral judgments, considering the elaborate, and strange penalties included in the Old Testament like for the crimes of adultery, rape, and Sodomy (Leviticus, and Deuteronomy).
How does Con know that loving in an orphanage is better than non-existence?
Con, most probably, and forgive me if you are, is not an orphan.
To clarify, I am not saying that the lives of all orphans are terrible, but that isn't the point. The point is that children should have a family who wants them, and cares for them at the beginning, and if the woman was forced to be a mother, it is most likely that they do not desire the baby, much less care for it.
Con seems to be saying that forcing a pregnant woman to give birth (a woman who wants an abortion, because they don't want a baby, or can't have a baby, through financial problems, age, etc.) is right.
I never said it would be right to kill an orphan, and that being an orphan is worse off than being dead.
I am trying to to say that forcing a woman to give birth to child, and therefore raise it, when she didn't want to have it, through economic problems, age, or any sort of reason, would give the child a difficult start, since the mother didn't want to have him/her in the first place.
Thank you for an engaging 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.