Should abortion be legal in the first trimester?
Debate Rounds (4)
First round: Acceptance
Second round: Opening statement
Third round: Rebuttal
Fourth round: Closing (more rebuttals allowed)
P.S. I like your profile picture.
Also, it's impossible to stop women from getting abortions. You can only stop them from getting safe abortions. Every year, 68,000 women die from getting unsafe abortions. Five-million more suffer medical consequences in the long term (4). If a woman does not want her baby, she will get herself an abortion. By stopping her from receiving one safely, you ensure that she'll turn to other means.
This debate really comes down to one thing. What constitutes a human being? Is it the body? If it was, how would we qualify amputees? If it's the mind, how do we qualify people with special needs? There is only one definitive way to define what a human is. If it has the DNA of a human being, than it is human.
But don't fret! This debate doesn't "come down to one thing." A woman should not have to support another life form at the expense of her own body, no matter what. Legally, you do not have to hurt yourself to save another's life. That is what I proved with the bone marrow example, (and you didn't really refute it). To answer your question, this is why abortion would be legal. If someone was trying to force you to donate bone marrow and you didn't want to, you would be legally justified in allowing that person to die.
As for the bodily rights argument, I also reject that. There is a moral obligation for a government, as outlined by Thomas Jefferson, to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life comes before liberty or happiness. If one doesn't have life, one can not have liberty or happiness. As for the bone marrow example, that is a failing of the United States of America's justice system. They have failed to follow through their moral or governmental obligation.
But it is hard. Why? Because no one can agree. There isn't unbiased scientific evidence for either side.
However, even if you were the first person to somehow prove that fetuses are humans, it still wouldn't win you this debate automatically. Bodily autonomy is still an important thing.
You say "there is a moral obligation for a government, as outlined by Thomas Jefferson, to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Based on your other arguments, bringing up Jefferson adds nothing to your claim. I can say that Jefferson is wrong about this being a moral obligation of government. After all, you said that my bone marrow example was a "failing of the United States of America's Justice System." If my expert opinion is worthless, so is yours.
However, I don't completely disagree with you. The government should promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... to a certain extent. Are you suggesting mandatory organ donation? Should I be able to message you today and say, "Hey, I need a kidney. Send it to me by next week and you're not allowed to say no." No, I shouldn't. Because it is your kidney. You do not have to give up your own possessions, much less your body, to keep me alive. It would be nice if you did, but you can't be legally obligated. That would mean that the government owned your body. It is unacceptable to force someone to seriously harm their own body, no matter what the purpose. As much as we can encourage selflessness in this form, it cannot be required. Because then your body isn't yours anymore. The government can take it away at any time.
The issue my opponent brings up about my expert opinion being worthless if I dismiss their expert opinion is debatable, but that is not what today's debate is about. This is about whether a government is morally obligated to force people to give up their redundant organs or other non essential body parts in order to save a life. I am going to say that the government should do that. When it comes to life, that is the first thing that needs to be protected. Liberty comes next. If we don't have life, than we don't have liberty. Therefore, we must safeguard life above liberty. Any argument in the contrary is ultimately contradictory. If we put liberty above life, than we are all dead. That is an impossible argument.
Definition of Humanity and Fetuses:
According to Oxford Dictionaries, the definition of humanity is "the human race; human beings collectively:". According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of humanity is " the human race : the totality of human beings". When it comes down to it, one only has humanity if one is part of the human race. The human race, as defined in biology (and I'm going to cite my knowledge of taxonomy, as passed on to me in my honors biology class), can only be found in DNA. Therefore, the ultimate definition of humanity is "possessing human DNA".
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.