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
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. 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. 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. 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.