Is abortion moral?
Debate Rounds (3)
- Good luck to anyone who accepts this debate.
Thanks for the wishes. Igualmente.
Introduction: Unfortunately, when one desires to have a debate about abortion, one must first define words. So, let's just define humans as members of the species homo sapiens (bolded for importance). I think we can agree on that. So I concede a fetus (which is what the "baby" actually is. Perhaps one could view this as an attempt to dehumanize the "baby", but to call it a baby would be to humanize it, so...) is a human. However, I believe the more important question is "Is a fetus a person?" Since I view this as the more important question to ask, I will not define person here.
I believe we both understand what moral means, so into the meat of things.
R1 "Unnecessary loss of human life": In some cases, however, an abortion is absolutely necessary. Childbirth, especially in third world countries, in a dangerous, painful, and expensive procedure. In California, having a child can cost anywhere from 3,200 to 37,000 dollars . This isn't even mentioning the cost of taking care of a child for 18+ years. Oh, and 57% of abortions come from low income families  (remember that sources, it's going to be coming up a lot.)
R2 "All the potential": A lot of these anti-abortion arguments can be summed up with "Think of the children" while 10,000+ voices scream "OH THE HUMANITY" in the background. I think I can rebute this in a single sentence. Think of the lives of the mothers that will be almost ruined by having a baby, seeing as 33% of abortions occur between the ages of 20-24 .
R3: "It'd be hard on their lives": Damn right it'll be hard on their life. Honestly, if my mother wanted to have aborted me, for pretty much any reason, I'd be cool with it. Excuse my language but raising children seems to be a huge bitch.
R4 "Red Rum": This is a debate of morality, but murder is kind of a legal term. It's basically the unlawful killing of a human being. Abortion isn't murder, as it is not illegal, and using such a term is misrepresenting the facts of the situation.
Case 1 "Person": While person is often used hand in hand with the term "human being", this is not what is meant. Person, for my purposes, means a being that has the moral right to make it's own life choices . For a fetus, this is not even possible.
Case 2 "Bodily Autonomy": Bodily autonomy is the idea that I have the rights over my own body. Imagine a scenario in which a person needs to be connected to my body to sustain their life. I have NO obligation to sacrifice my body for another person.
R1: In, response to your first argument I would like to say this. Using your definition a person is someone who can make their own decisions. I'll accept that as a definition. Even so a fetus is still a homo sapien and we have a moral obligation to take care of our own. Besides, Usually the reason the mother became pregnant in the first place is because she was being stupid with some guy and they accidentally conceived. She should have thought of that before she went and had sex. Also, only 1% of women who get abortions are because of rape, so that is a pretty weak argument.
If you are a single mother, then there are plenty of financial aids available to you. Shown in the links below.
R2: Now on to your second argument/Case. If you conceive a fetus/child then you owe them everything that a a normal child should have. You do have an obligation to them to sacrifice your body because you were at least halfway responsible for bringing them into this world.
MY Case: Potential: Many of the worlds most successful people like founder of forever 21 Do Won Chang, or talk show host Oprah Winfrey, came from almost nothing. But they worked their way to the top and ended up with great lives. However imagine if their mothers aborted them. All of those accomplishments would go away, all because they're mothers didn't want them in fear of it making their lives harder.
Response to response 1: We are agreed that a fetus is not a person, but is a human being. We disagree on the implications this carries. While one may be expected to help those in need, whether or not they are of the same species, but the line of "obligation" (there is no real obligation to do good) ends when one must sacrifice their own body and health.
Actually, according to the god send that is Abortion Statistics, half of all women getting abortions report contraception was used in the month before conception. To quote them fully, "In fact, half of all women getting abortions report that contraception was used during the month they became pregnant.1 Some of these couples had used the method improperly; some had forgotten or neglected to use it on the particular occasion they conceived; and some had used a contraceptive that failed. No contraceptive method prevents pregnancy 100% of the time." Then you go on to say, "She should have thought of that before she went and had sex." She should have though of that before she went and had sex, eh? Takes two to tango, my friend, and lesbian has a surprisningly low risk of having an unplanned child.
Maybe abortions due to rape are low but they are not nonexistant. You did not specify any kind of abortion, so you do not get to exclude abortions due to rape from the conversation.
Response to Response 2: Here's the tough reality of the situation, though: Some people literally can not afford this. Even with aid, so much time, money, and energy is given to raising a child. There's adoption, sure, but the possibility of growing up in a foster home is grim for many kids.
I also love how you are just pouring down on women that have abortions, but what about the fathers that desert the children? This debate is about abortion, sure, but your language implies women that have abortions are a rung lower than Satan and the accidental fathers are blameless. He has hands! He can put a god damn condom on (that is if it works correctly)!
Response to your case: Those two people are exceptional, I agree. However, look at the root word of exceptional; except. As in, these two are the exceptions to the rule. Not every kid will beat the odds, or else there wouldn't be any odds to beat.
You want to talk about how the child's potential is being squandered, but you do not turn the situation around. Think of all the potential young mothers could of had if they were allowed to receive an abortion rather than becoming a mother too soon?
Lastly, not every person is really going to do anything of importance. Maybe this baby would of cured cancer, maybe they would shoot up a school, but most likely they'd do nothing of importance. We are innocent until proven guilty, which means you can't assume someone will be guilty of doing good things.
Response 2: Why can't they? There is so much out there that is available for single parents! From food stamps to welfare and other independent resources, there is no excuse as to why you cannot meet the basic needs of a child. I'm not saying it will be easy, but I am saying that it's doable no matter the situation.
Response to your response to my case: The thing about it is that every human matters, even if they are doing the most seemingly insignificant job, they still make a difference in the lives of others. Those were just 2 examples to prove my point.
Secondly, being a mother to a child is not a waste of potential. It is one of the most important jobs that anyone can have. Like you said most people won't achieve anything of importance in their life, but being a loving parent is never a waste of a life.
Case 1: No parent regrets being a parent. You never hear anyone say that they wish they never had kids/kid. The love and adoration that a parent has for their child is so strong that they will never regret it. It makes the parents and more responsible, wiser people.
Conclusion: I would once again like to thank my opponent for taking this argument. I hope that the voters thought that reading this argument was worth their time, and attention. It truly is a very important issue. Thank you.
The Final Round
Part 1: Actually, in a sense in which helping another human being can become harmful to someone, they are no longer obligated in any sense to helpt said person. You mention "discomfort" (have you ever given birth? It's a hell of a lot worse than discomfort) and other such side effects, but unfortunately there are many parts of the world where birth can be a death sentence. While we are privileged enough to have access to modern medicine, the entire world isn't so lucky.
Here we go again! "The woman" has to realize the risks! But no, if contraception fails when applied properly then one should not have to face the consequnces of another's shortcomings. "I never meant to exclude the man from this..." Did you even read the statement you JUST said? While I would say abortion should really be the woman's decision, the man's feelings on the topic are usually considered.
Part 2: Okay, now I know you haven't raised a child. Most "normal" childhoods are NOT living off bare minimum. There's toys, there's insurance, there's a HELL of a lot more. "It's doable no matter the situation." Let's ask the feedingamerica.org page what it thinks of that. " According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 15.9 million children under 18 in the United States live in households where they are unable to consistently access enough nutritious food necessary for a healthy life." Huh.
Part 3: I agree that pretty much every job is at least partially beneficial and some necessary to the functioning of our world. Of course, no one really dreams as a child "I'm gonna be a plumber!" or "I'll be the mail man!" While most jobs are beneficial, this does not mean that every life turns out to be beneficial. Children die everyday and our world has yet to collapse.
Let me paint you a picture, then. You're in college, getting the degree to help you get your dream job, whatever it may be. You, like most college students, like to party, if only occasionally. You meet a guy, or maybe he's someone you know, and you get together. Maybe you used a condom, maybe you didn't. It's not really important. What is, however, is that you are pregnant. You now have a few options. You could have an abortion, a procedure with little risk and relatively affordable. You don't miss much and soon you have your degree!
Or you could become a parent. You use what little money you have, being a college student, on the unplanned pregnancy. Your parents help you, though to the bare minimum. Of course, they aren't too subtle with their opinions of you. You get a little bit of financial aid, but your emotional support is gone. The guy obviously doesn't stick around; he's going to do good things with his degree! You, however, do not get yours.
Now tell me about how immoral the first option is?
Part 4: Yeah, I'm just going to quote the National Child Abuse Statistics. "Children are suffering from a hidden epidemic of child abuse and neglect. Every year more than 3 million reports of child abuse are made in the United States involving more than 6 million children (a report can include multiple children). The United States has one of the worst records among industrialized nations – losing on average between four and seven children every day to child abuse and neglect." REAL WISE, AREN'T THEY??? You can practically HEAR the responsibility over the cries of beaten children.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by The_Gatherer 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made better more sensible argument. Con quite frankly seems not to understand the implications of either pregnancy or abortion and so should really not have started this debate.
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Kind of wishing it wasn't a simple win/lose, but I do feel that Pro won, considering his arguments made slightly more sense. I am pro abortion, and most likely always will be, but Con presented probably the best arguments I've heard for anti abortion in a long time, so I'm very pleased with how well he represented his case and himself. I hope he gets recognition and something out of this, as he did a great job.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Con's case was extremely weak, and some of his unsupported assertions were just flatly absurd. "No parent regrets being a parent"? You'll need something else besides just saying so, Con, because on its face that's an utterly absurd statement to make--one that bolsters Pro's arguments that you don't have the requisite perspective to make such claims. Pro's case had at least a little bit more meat to it, so he wins the day. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
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.