Should abortion be legal
Debate Rounds (3)
Best of luck, and cheers to a good debate. :)
To start you mention that abortion is a necessary evil. This implies that the destruction of the human life is in itself a bad thing. If we both agree on this we then have to determine why is this unfortunate or evil. Dose the choice of a big human trump the right to live of a big human?
My argument is can be formulated as such: p1-Unborn children are human, p2- all humans have an absolute right to life, conclusion- all unborn children have an absolute right to life.
My first premise that all unborn children are human is a fact of science. Embryology tells us that life starts at conception, this life by virtue of having two human parents is thus a "human life". We can further see that since this life is growing and has its only unique DNA it is a human organism. The stance that unborn children aren't human is nonsense as i think you will agree.
My second premise, that all human life has an absolute right to life is the more important premise. We have seen in the past in society that when one group of humans deny's personhood to another group of humans all sorts of injustices happen. We see this is Nazi germany, in the american days of slavery, and even in our culture before women were considered persons under the law. When we deny personhood to human beings there can be no stopping the evils committed against them. Thus all human life can be said to be inseparable from its personhood and thus needs to be protected as such. This applies even if at the apparent expense of another group of people.
If my two premises are sound an true, then my conclusion is also sound and true.
The destruction of human life is indeed wrong. The choice of an adult is not strong enough justification to end a child's existence. However, we must also take into account outlying circumstances. More on that later.
Now your argument would be sound, if all conceptions happened between consenting, responsible, and capable adults. However, this is sadly untrue. We live in a world where teenagers make poor decisions, rapists take advantage of women and men, and there are tragic birth complications. While it is both regrettable and heavy-handed, we should as a society consider the fact that not all children will be born into a world that will love and nurture them as they should be. It is an act of mercy, for children who are in the womb of an alcoholic and will be born with deformities and deficiencies that could quite possibly damn them. It is an act of mercy to allow young women a second chance, without being shackled to take care of their mistake for the rest of their lives. It is quite akin to a life sentence in prison, only your prison is a living breathing human.
I don't deny that an abortion is the snuffing of a human life, however I think it should be legal under circumstances where we can prevent suffering, and be merciful to those who would otherwise experience a lifetime of pain. The argument could be made for the fact that their fate is not set in stone, however I would argue further that the margin of exceptions is very thin. I wouldn't wish a life of pain on anyone, and abortion prevents that suffering before a baby even has time to process its own existence. It hasn't attained sentience until long after birth. What do you think? I concur that nobody should arbitrarily choose to abort, but when the circumstances are there, it should be a forgivable course of action.
To your first point I think if we believe that abortion is ok then there is no need to explain why you abort someone. If it is indeed murder then there is no possible reason to justify it. Further the value of one's life is not based on the way in which they were conceived. Even a child of rape is a child, it's a horrible circumstance but if you acknowledge that abortion is an evil, why do two evils make a good?
You also say that to abort a child that will struggle in this life due to health concerns of the pregnancy is a merciful act. This looks at the value of human life as though it was a direct reflection of the utility of that person. In other words you are only valuable insofar as you have use. Following this logic we should also kill born humans when things get tough for them. Essentially if someone were to be paralyzed and have a bleak future we should just kill them off to save them from this horrible world. Now some people might believe that to be ok but i don't think you believe that. I say this because you say that abortion is inherently wrong because it ends a life, you are in effect saying that ending lives is wrong.
Your logic to say that human life is valuable but it is also ok to throw away because of hardships doesn't add up.
I will also add that you didn't actually refute my argument. I guess my question is do all humans have an absolute right to life (regardless of their utility)?
(btw thanks for the debate)
I concede that my second point is the weaker of the two. However, when I say that it is merciful to abort a child that will definitely be born deformed and disadvantaged, it is not a remark (to me at least) on the "utility" of that person. Machiavellian thought completely agrees with abortion, whereas I think that it should be regulated but available. It's merciful, because you and I both know that somebody born with Down's Syndrome, or Prenatal Alchohol Syndrome, or any other of a number of damaging conditions will have a lower quality of life than somebody who doesn't and because of this it should be legal for mothers to get a do-over. I know how bad that sounds. It's just that me personally, I wouldn't want to raise a child that was damned from birth. I'm not saying we purge these people from society. There are definitely people, arguably better people than myself, who would gladly bring these people into the world and raise them with love and patience. But I was never talking about the well-off, responsible, loving parents who decide they don't want another child. That's preposterous. I'm talking about victims of rape, teenage mothers, and babies that through no fault of their own, will live hard lives.
The thing is, we are always talking about judging people based on things they can't help. Things they're born with. Hardships are hardships because they can be endured, overcome, bested to some degree. However being born with no eyesight, missing tissue, and degenerative brain conditions aren't hardships, that's the cruelty of nature's toss of the dice. And it's not something I would want to subject anybody to. This starts branching off into topics like the Death Penalty, Euthanasia, and Mercy Killing but I won't get into those now. Your question; Do all humans have an absolute right to life? Yes. A resounding yes, and I would go even further to say that they have the right to be born healthy and free of illness, and furthermore to be raised by caring, responsible, and capable parents. So should abortion be legal? I think yes, because these conditions aren't always present and the alternative is to see a generation of broken children grow into broken people and maybe (worst case scenario here) become broken parents.
So as always, this is a grim topic. But I thank you for prompting me to have this debate and sharing your opinion. To be honest with you, I'm really, really on the fence with this. It's such a tricky issue. The big problem with abortion almost isn't the practice itself, but the controversy around it. Anyway, I hope to have more debates with you in the future, and best of luck! Cheers, Kalleth.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Stonehe4rt 9 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Both had great Conduct, liked the debate. Con obviously won this, I will explain. Firstly Pro conceded his second point to Con. Secondly, Pro did not actually refute Con. Thirdly, Pro agreed everyone has the right to live. Fourthly, Pro did not offer proof or logic behind killing a baby because of someone else's fault. Such as rape, is the baby guilty for the mother being raped? No the baby isnt, so why kill the baby? Even if it is a result of rape. Basically Con was much more convincing in his debate, and as my vote he won greatly.
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.