The Instigator
nathanael.hauschild
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
medv4380
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Should abortion be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
medv4380
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 676 times Debate No: 32024
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

nathanael.hauschild

Con

I believe that abortion is morally wrong in ALL cases except if the life of the mother is in danger. I think that an embryo is a human being the moment egg is fertilized. Therefore according to the Declaration of Independence all human beings are entitled to "life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness"( first paragraph).The reason that I believe that a child is human at the first stage of its life because it was created by human reproduction,The embryo contains human DNA the second the egg is fertilized and because it has the potential to become a fully grown human being. Also when a doctor performs an abortion he/she has broken the Hippocratic oath,because it says"I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and NEVER do harm to ANYONE(emphasis added).""Hippocratic oath
medv4380

Pro

I accept the instigators challenge.

The con maybe surprised to see that we actually agree on many of the moral grounds. I, however, take a much more hard line objective moral stance. Abortion is immoral in all situations including the health of the mother. It may seem logically irrational to be pro-choice, and hold such an objective moral view, but I assure you that my view is entirely based on reason.

There is no need for this arbitrary line for when life begins. Both the egg and sperm contain human dna, and meet the biological definition of life. They just happen to be a haploid life form, and are no more or less alive than other haploid life forms. Such arbitrary lines are only used to comfort us when we are faced with such morally destructive decisions like abortion, and to avoid legal vagueness. The scientific definitions that anyone can use are so broad and vague that they could be manipulated to say anything you want, and some consider the pursuit of such a definition to be a fruitless scientific endeavor.

Why hold such a hard line view, and be pro-choice?

The answer lies within the Cons own exception for when abortion may be administered. Normally I would have to argue for either rape, or the health of the mother as situations where abortion is permissible before going further, but since the Con has kindly yielded the health of the mother I will build upon that point. You can think of the health of the mother as a hostage situation in which only two options of three possible outcomes are possible. Ether, both mother and child will die, only the mother will die, or only the child will die. This is what I would call an Objective Moral Paradox with the worst combination being either the Mother will die or the Child will die. This is the core of what it means to be Pro-choice. Only the mother is fit enough to decide if she will sacrifice her own life.

Other combinations are far easier. If you’re faced with both dieing, or only the child dieing then you go with the only option where someone can live. This is where we start to have a problem when abortion is made illegal for any reason. Abortion is already illegal in Ireland except for when you’re dealing with extreme medical situations where the life of the mother is at risk. Since Ireland already represent the Cons ideal solution maybe they can explain why Savita Halappanavar died[1]. This was a clear case of a medical need to abort the child to save the mother, and a situation where both, mother and child, died.

An abortion law could be constructed under two very generalized categories. Ether, guilty until proven innocent, or innocent until proven guilty. If we assume guilt in any abortion case then we require that the defence proves that the abortion was medically necessary. Because of the uncertainty of medical science the doctor is in a bit of a bind. There is always the possibility that another doctor would have the opinion that the patient was salvageable. This isn’t because either is dishonest, but because medical expertise and option varies widely, and is why you should always consider getting a Second Opinion[2]. This presents a conflict for a doctor because they know that they will be in legal jeopardy even when they know that they are correct. In this situation you end up with cases like Savita’s were doctors refuse to do what is right.

In the case of assumed Innocents you end up with an unenforceable law. Who other than the doctor, and the mother, would know that it wasn’t for medical reasons? In the US we have a right against self incrimination[3]. You could construct the law to require documentation to prove it was for medical reasons, but that would be Napoleonic Guilty Until Proven Innocent, and is deeply un-American. Not to mention that it would cause the issues mentioned earlier.

My point is that, even though Abortion is always immoral, because there is sound reasoning behind allowing abortions for medical reasons we can’t construct a law that would be enforceable, or not jeopardize the people the exemption is intended for.

[1]http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
[2]http://www.cnn.com...
[3]http://www.law.cornell.edu...

Debate Round No. 1
nathanael.hauschild

Con

nathanael.hauschild forfeited this round.
medv4380

Pro

I will yield this round in hopes that my opponent will have the opportunity to post a response before the end.
Debate Round No. 2
nathanael.hauschild

Con

nathanael.hauschild forfeited this round.
medv4380

Pro

Again, I will yield this round in hopes that my opponent will have the opportunity to post a response before the end.
Debate Round No. 3
nathanael.hauschild

Con

nathanael.hauschild forfeited this round.
medv4380

Pro

And yet again, I will yield this round in hopes that my opponent will have the opportunity to post a response before the end.
Debate Round No. 4
nathanael.hauschild

Con

nathanael.hauschild forfeited this round.
medv4380

Pro

I believe I've made my case, but with an absent opponent it's hard to say.

I will leave this up to the opening arguments alone.

Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by medv4380 3 years ago
medv4380
@salvagedrover If you wish to have a debate over Morality, Free Will, or otherwise you're free to challenge. I'd write up one for you myself, but your rant is a bit too unfocused for me to pinpoint your actual objection. This particular debate is about Legality, and not Morality. You may have been confused by my position, but I am tossing out the Red Herring Morality and Human Life argument, and arguing the rational for Pro-Choice even with a Pro-Life perspective. It was intended to give my opponent a challenge he'd most likely never encountered. But your rantings seem like a more interesting debate since my opponent appears to have been too intimidated after starting this debate.
Posted by salvagedrover 3 years ago
salvagedrover
"HUMAN", "ANYONE", these words sure sound like they refer to sperm if I ever hear them. Infact, when I even THINK about the word HUMAN, I imagine the picture of a small tadpole-looking person swimming towards a giant egg inside a woman's tummy. What? You mean you don't see the same thing when YOU close your eyes and hear the word HUMAN? Well I guess that's the beauty of what your god apparently gave us; FREE WILL. That means feelings, emotions, thoughts, opinions, beliefs, all that stuff and more. When these hipocratically-bound doctors cut into a "HUMAN", is that not an act of, say, god himself? Afterall, god created heaven and earth, and adam and eve, right? So who are we to screw around with that by that rationale? If someone is sick or damaged, certaly god has willed it so, ad we should not interfere, right? Are you saying that if I cut myself, I cannot apply a bandaid? If I lose my arm, I cannot close it up and get a prosthetic if I so wish? And if I were a woman, and did not want to create a new human for WHATEVER circumstances, being that it grows nowhere else (test tube babies are still created with sperm and an egg) but within a particular woman's body, should it not be her right to control what's inside of it? Why aren't cigarettes and alcohol immoral, why is alcohol used in religious ceremonies if it's factually proven to cause death? Abortion is nobody's business but the woman and man used to create the pregnancy (notice I said pregnancy, not person) and nobody forces ANY doctor to perform an abortion. That's the free will part "god" gave us.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
nathanael.hauschildmedv4380Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.