Only In Certain Circumstances Is Abortion Ethical
Debate Rounds (5)
One of the reasons for my position is that the child or fetus is still human. Many pro-choice people always talk that the fetus is "just a bunch of tissue" and that "no one knows when life begins", but we do, it starts as that little blob in our mothers' wombs. And one MUST recognize that there are TWO lives not just one.
So because there are two lives to consider women must be more aware of that child's right to live as well. That's why I believe that abortion could only be ethically right if the mother's life is in danger and if the child would end up living like a human vegetable for the rest of their lives. Other than that abortion is not ethical.
I am Pro-Choice for the most part, I am for it until the 28th week when they start to feel pain. (The nerve connections required begin to form ) I see abortion as preventing the would-be human from existing rather than murder. If we never came into existence we wouldn't bare a grudge, we'd have to exist for that. I don't count a fetus as humans until they begin to feel (As I stated before, I said pain because it is among the first emotions.)
If you look at the Donohue-Levitt Hypothesis  you will find a correlation between abortion and crime. Why?
If a baby is unwanted, it's parents aren't ready, (or parent, if it's the mother alone taking care of it) or the baby would push their current family into poverty, it wouldn't have the best childhood. It would have the potential to be happy, but in this kind of environment that becomes less likely.
What about adoption?
Adoption too, has it's share of flaws . It isn't the same as growing in your original family. Some make it out happy and content, but there are already many children waiting in the adoption system. Every time another goes in, there is a higher chance that another makes it out alone.
If a would-be mother aborts, she can actually create a career for herself and have a child later whenever she is prepared for it. This new child would grow up happier, with a real family surrounding it. She could have more children if she were to choose so and they would all be better off than the aborted child would be if it were to survive.
And for your two scenarios about the mother's life in danger or the baby being a vegetable as a cause for an ethical abortion, I agree and would see this as good enough reason to go past the 28 week limit I initially established.
Plus the world isn't black and white, its grey. While there obviously are children in foster care who get into crime, really the majority don't. The majority end up as good working citizens.
Now looking at that Wikipedia article you showed on the effect of legalized abortion of crime, particularly this sentence:
"it is argued that the legalization of abortion in the United States, largely due to the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, has reduced crime in the late 20th and early 21st centuries."
Ever heard of the word coincidence?
In Canada (where I'm from if you hadn't noticed), Liberal politicians tried to use the decline of crime in the country as evidence to prove that the Youth Criminal Justice Act the left-wing gov't had passed worked. Thing was though crime was already in the decline way before the act was enacted. This is what those who believe in this imaginary link between abortion and crime are doing as well. Using a coincidence as empirical evidence, even though it isn't.
Also you state that you don't consider fetuses as human beings unless they can feel pain. Animals can feel pain, does that make them human as well? A fetus is human no matter how young they are, no matter if they can feel or not, they are composed of human DNA you know.
Just like to point out that I am a woman myself so of course I am for women to have the opportunity to get a great career. And its just fine if woman want to have a sex life before settling down, just really be careful not to get pregnant. And even if they end up conceiving a child at some point again, it points back to my argument that there should be TWO lives to consider not one. The woman should (again) consider not only what's best for her but for her unwanted child.
Check this out
What a baby looks like at twelve weeks.
I personally believe that people who are pro-choice are because they can't see or hear the fetus, so they won't care. Maybe I'm getting to emotional on this subject but again its just how I feel. Everyone has a right to live, and I don't believe that just because the what you call potential human being is inside a woman that the woman has the right to play God and terminate the child just because they don't want them. At any time of the pregnancy. Only, like I said before, when their lives are in danger or the child would end up as a vegetable for their entire life could abortion be ethical because abortion is the last resort.
Thank you again for providing some good points, this still looks to be an interesting debate.
I know that many people in the adoption system DO end up okay, even happy, but what I was saying is each one that goes in may create another one that doesn't follow this trend. If every single person who got an abortion put their kids in the adoption system instead, the percentage that end up happy would be significantly less, even rare to find. Annually, there is a bit over a million babies aborted per year . That is abortions in the U.S alone. 120,000 babies are adopted each year in the U.S. If every single baby conceived was born, what would happen to them? No home, and that many babies would take much resources to keep, which would come out of the people's pocket. Does that justify terminating an unborn child's life?
The world isn't black and white, its grey. While there obviously are children who could have been born and would have had happy lives, the majority wouldn't. They could end up as criminals.
I'm sorry about the lack of evidence the wikipedia article states, I just wanted you to understand the main part of the idea. The original claim that freakonomics had much more evidence supporting it.  I should have struggled to find a better source such as words from one of the men who actually came up with this hypothesis.
As for the pain argument you present, of course animals can feel pain. The reason I use that as a point is that 'feeling' is one of the major characteristics that mark us as humans. Pain is among the first emotions to develop. If you'd like to argue on 'Feeling' as a fundamental part of human characteristics, feel free, but the aspect of thinking begins with these emotions. Thinking is what man uses to separate himself from 'animals.' (Technically I know we are animals, but I refer to the connotative meaning of feral/ primal.)
I know how a baby develops, the stages of development and all that, (I've seen photos and never really been struck by them) but that doesn't change my stance on the topic. I don't value an individual's life above all, but rather mankind as a whole. I don't see the woman committing abortion as playing God, it's in her own body, not the universe. If you don't like the idea of people playing God, determining life and death, how are doctors beneficial, they help you live don't they? Finally, you keep mentioning the vegetable as a right for abortion, what changes the value of their lives? If you disagree with the idea of 'feeling' as a fundamental part of lives, are people who live as 'vegetables' equally important? If being a human is determined at conception, then these vegetables are entitled just as much right to live as you or me.
Now, your argument certainly does resemble the most pro-choice arguments I've heard. Always posing the question that would someone who is pro life be okay terminating a child if they would be born into a life of discourse and tragedy. So to just answer that question, no, abortion would still not be ethical. Repeating the same statement again, the world isn't black and white, its grey. While there are those who are born into lives in poverty who just stay in poverty, there are others who work hard and end up becoming something in their lives. It really does depend on the person. And to take the chance for that "potential human being" to even work for a good life before they could even take breathe is still unethical. Why is it that you and I get the chance to live life while those million unborn children you were referring to can't? And wouldn't you agree that that's unfair? Just a little?
Also, to refer back to my point before about women playing God. I mean that just because the fetus is inside you does not really mean that it is yours. That you could do absolutely anything to it. A woman could pierce any part of her body, or drink as much as she wants and whatever, but again when you conceive a child there is automatically two lives to consider. Whether the kid is going to end up as future President or a serial killer, everyone should have the right to live.
"If you don't like the idea of people playing God, determining life and death, how are doctors beneficial, they help you live don't they?"
They do help me live that is for sure, but they're not playing God. Unless I'm on life support and they take me off thinking that's what's best for me without me having a voice at all. (To be honest that's sort of how I think about abortion)
Now the number you gave is a bit chilling. 1 million babies being aborted per year and only 120,000 are adopted. And it is a very good argument I would have to say, but as you suggested by saying that you focus more on the people rather than the individual it all depends on perspective. On this debate I do tend to focus more on the individual's right.
Assuming that you are from the US, your country's motto is basically "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.". The US Constitution is all about the individual and their rights. So it seems pretty funny how while abortion is legal (to my knowledge) in most states, the practice is very much against natural law. Taking the individual's basic right to life.
This is a pro-life website with arguments for secular societies. One of their arguments I would like to point out is on human development. Before you stated that you were okay with abortion during pregnancy until the 28th week because that's when it could feel pain and emotions are the first stage of thinking. According to this article electrical brain activity can be detected by the 6th week of pregnancy so though it may not feel it is certainly not unconscious.
Referring to the link that you gave me you should also point out that it says that the increased in breast cancer on women who get an abortion is 100%. I don't really believe but just so you really check your sources next time.
Starting off with my weak links, I usually try to make sure that I find a sites that have the same data and find the one that states the information the clearest.  Looking back, not sure why I decided Movement for a Better America rather than life news. That one is my bad, but I still think I have a sufficient claim that the ratio for aborted to adopted are just about the same. Before I move on, I'd like to make a point that the frc site, though with some interesting points, may not be the best place to gather information.  If you give me specific arguments from there and provide another source for the science they use I will address them directly.
Glad you summed up why you felt like it’s okay to abort the vegetables. It’s your religion, that’s not the debate. I think I’ll just leave this point alone.
“She could have more children if she were to choose so and they would all be better off than the aborted child would be if it were to survive.”
I quote myself when I state this. By better off, I suppose I am saying that children in these conditions have a higher chance of potential for success.
“I am against abortion not only because what a fetus is (which is human) but also what he/she could be.”
In this statement, it seems you are arguing for the potential of the child who comes first.
It is interesting how we both perceive the potential of a child as a major factor. I still stand by my idea, as yes, there is potential for success in the child, but if we simply to look at the odds of success, the first child would hurt the chances of the second child and the mother herself. (As I stated, the mother could set up a strong career for herself, and be a success on her own accord.)
I don’t quite see the logic in “Why is it that you and I get the chance to live life while those million unborn children you were referring to can't? And wouldn't you agree that that's unfair? Just a little?”
Me and you get the chance to live because our parents decided to keep us. Our parents were either ready (as in my case), convinced Pro-life was the right decision, or they felt there was no other option but to keep us. This part seems straightforward.
Now, I look at the second part of this which brings in the idea of ‘fair.’ Guess what? Life and Death aren’t fair, and apparently existence isn’t either. I would like to point out that if every unborn child was born, many more families would be living in poverty and the adoption system would be far worse, even cruel to put people in. (The number of kids would put a drain on resources, there would be less homes available to them, and due to the before-mentioned resource drain and taxes, less homes would be able to keep a child.)
By the way, it wouldn’t be an extra million children in the world. That was the average per year. If we multiply that by 17 (18 is adulthood) that will be significantly more than 17 million. (We both rounded down to a million.)
Compare that with the adopted 2 million (120000*17= 2040000) and we still have around 15 million children running around without homes. To be honest, there probably would be women who would be more pro-active about contraception if abortion was illegal, so I think taking 5 million would be far more than enough. An additional 10 million children is still severely damaging to the economy, and countless amounts of Poverty-ridden Americans who would have to work for whatever paid, taking jobs and still damaging the economy even further by relying on the handouts of the government. I know you’ve heard this before as I think many pro-choice bring it up, but it is a good measure of population control.
“...but as you suggested by saying that you focus more on the people rather than the individual it all depends on perspective. On this debate I do tend to focus more on the individual's right.”
“A matter of perspective” is why we are arguing. You don’t say my thinking is wrong, you just say yours is different.
If neither of these is ‘wrong,’ then they have equal merit and thus they should be decided by an individual. Pro-Choice is mainly about giving the decision to the individual, Pro-Life believes that the choice is made for them when they become pregnant. You should argue about why the individual is more important than mankind, not just accepting that we think differently. Accepting both are right technically makes me correct (As I stated, the idea of pro-choice alone would do this.)
Back for the ‘playing God’ portion, I guess I do have to say that it doesn’t strike me a morally wrong. If we have sufficient reasons to believe that choosing life/ death for someone is okay, then I think that it is acceptable for people to make that decision.
Also, what right does God have to decide if we live or die anyhow?
“Assuming that you are from the US, your country's motto is basically "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.". The US Constitution is all about the individual and their rights. So it seems pretty funny how while abortion is legal (to my knowledge) in most states, the practice is very much against natural law. Taking the individual's basic right to life.”
Wouldn’t for most women, motherhood be taking away the pursuit of happiness, and the choice of whether or not they had to be a murder a theft of Liberty?
In Roe V. Wade, the court decided that it was a right of privacy was the main reason of allowing abortion . By the way, that was a legal matter, and we are talking about ethics, they may not always be the same, and I think law is more of an appeal to authority than proof of right and wrong. (Unless you can create an argument about why it’s right, such as abortion is morally okay. If we used law as the determining factor, this would be over. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness you can argue using as they are ideas that hold value in this country.)
“Pain and emotions are the first stage of thinking. According to this article electrical brain activity can be detected by the 6th week of pregnancy so though it may not feel it is certainly not unconscious.”
To think is defined as "to believe that something is true, that a particular situation exists, that something will happen." 
Thought is another form of think, brainwave activity is not the same as thought.
Also conscious is defined “as awake and able to understand what is happening around you”  Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think this describes the characteristics of a fetus.
(They have different numbers stated, but the first site explains why.)
Now since you love to pull out the statistics I shall as well. On average numbers show that there are three arguements that are repeated by women who choose to abort the child. 3/4 saying that having the child would interfere with work, school, and such, another 3/4 say that they cannot afford the child, and 1/2 say that they do not want to be a single parent or they are having trouble with their husbands/partners. Mind you that even though these excuses sure do have their merit, it does not make abortion ethical. Not just because of the child's right to live that I had continously talked about before, but because there is something else that can be done about it. The fact is there are other choices to make, and again abortion should be the last of them.
You clearly expressed your concern for the masses rather than the individual. So I will try to show you how if women keep their unwanted children and leave them up for adoption how much that would satisfy the nation's people. According to statistics, if more woman choose to keep the child then put it up for adoption it would satisfy a lot of infertile women looking for children. 30% of Americans have considered adopting a child. The survey conducted by the NSFG found that the percentage of married women who want to adopt rose from 26% in 1995 to 36% in 2002. Most of them often seeking children under tha age of 2 and healthy.
Looking at a study done by statisticsbrain.com (using sources from the US Department of Health and Services) over 600,000 children under foster care were adopted that being 37% of adoptions done in the US. 56% of which was of no cost to the future parents. 86% of adoptions done by foster care were done with the adults wanting to give a permenant home to the child, 61% to expand the family. 81% of the relationships between the adoptee and his/her new parents were considered "very warm and close".
And as you lightly discussed on the psychological effects adopted children go through. Actually only 9% of adopted children exhibited depression while the overwhelmingly majority (88%) have shown positive social behaviours.
Clearly people would benifit from unwanted children. As they say, another man's poison is another man's meat.
Of course this is an ethical debate as well so I've decided to use a normative ethical system that of which uses logic and reasoning to prove what is right and what is wrong. This system is called deontology. To figure if one action is ethical or the opposite one must make a categorical imperative. So if every women in the world who concieved a child had an abortion, does there lie a contridiction? Meaning is there then a point to abortion. Must point out that this is focusing on the action itself and not the consequence. I leave that to you to answer.
didymus forfeited this round.
Mandooke forfeited this round.
didymus forfeited this round.
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.