There Are Good Logical/Scientific Arguments to Justify Abortion
Debate Rounds (4)
Pro agrees to begin by presenting their evidence in Round 1, and will only type "End of Debate" in Round 4 to equal out the entries for each side. Both sides agree to avoid discussing extreme cases such as rape, incest, and life of the mother, as these reasons only account for 0.43% of annual abortions . Focusing attention on such minutia qualifies as a Red Herring.
== Definitions ==
"Morally acceptable" - This is not a debate about objective morality. Let's just go with the generally agreed upon maxim that it is wrong to kill another person unless in self defense. This places burden on Pro to demonstrate how abortion does not violate this maxim, or, if it does, why it should be considered an exception.
"Abortion" - the intentional termination of a pregnancy. This excludes "natural abortions" such as miscarriages.
"Human life" - Go with whatever definition you want. It's on me to demonstrate why your definition is logically or scientifically inconsistent.
"Good logical/scientific argument" - An argument that stands up to scrutiny and avoids fallacies.
These should be all the definitions we need. Please no semantics.
Hello, I will be the pro side of the debate, and I will be trying to convince my opponent that there are good and logical/scientific arguments to justify Abortion.
I think my opponent has stated all the definitions that we will need for the arguments to come, so I have no further evidence I would like to present at this time.
I do like the concept of science and logic over morality, seeing as how different people have different ideas on morality.
I also hope we can keep religious beliefs out of this debate, and I would enjoy it if we kept it all on proven science, not personal theories or conspiracies.
I would ask Pro to please present their initial case so we can start the debate.
I'm am sorry Con, for missing that part. I will now begin with presenting my initial case
My first point will be describing what is looking to be one of the biggest threats to our existence as a species.
In 1999 there were 6 Billion humans inhabiting the earth. In 2013, there were 7 Billion. That is an increase of 1 billion people in just 14 years. Recent studies show that by 2050, we will need to equivalent of 3 Earths worth of resources to feed our growing population. By 2025, 66% of the Earth's population will not have enough water. All these problems are cause by the 2.88 fertility rate on Earth.
We have several options to solve this problem. We can look for more planets, we can teach youth, we can try to find renewable resources, but it all comes back to people having to stop having children. It is not something we like to discuss, we would rather blame the big corporations that create climate change, but we also need to look at ourselves and what we are doing to the planet. We really need to stop thinking of ourselves and how we want to have a family and have kids and we need to focus on the greater good of the planet as a whole. It is not a pretty thought, but it needs to be discussed.
I am not saying everybody who has a baby right now should have an abortion, but what I am saying is that the overpopulation problem is one way to justify abortions.
It's important to note that Pro did not challenge the idea that abortion kills an unborn human life. Instead, my opponent implies that the dangers of overpopulation are more pressing, thereby making abortion a type of self defense measure to save our species. This argument has two parts. First - overpopulation is a real danger. Second - abortion is a justifiable self defense against such danger.
Is overpopulation a real danger? Not really. Pro notes that by 2050 we would need three Earth's worth of resources to feed population projections. The central flaw with that, of course, is that it's based on current consumption rates. The world's population, especially it's industrialized population, is incredibly wasteful. In the U.S. alone, 30-40% of all food supply gets wasted. A full one third of the food produced worldwide gets thrown out . It's not our food consumption that's out of control, it's our production. The same goes for water and electricity consumption. The incredible strain on water and electricity has more to do with the world's extravagant hotels, swimming pools, and irrigation systems than basic human necessity. If we simply consumed what we needed and stopped taking 15 minute showers, the strain on water supplies would be much less. The solution to this is not killing unborn people. It is controlling our own consumption of luxury goods and finding more efficient ways to produce and irrigate crops. As efficient green technology increases, the strain on resource production will decrease.
Pro talks of the dangers of a net 2.88% population growth rate worldwide. Yet, that 2.88% mostly comes from only a handful of countries. The top population growth rates across the globe belong to countries such as Lebanon, Zimbabwe, Sudan, and Uganda . These are largely poor countries with high amounts of violence and short life expectancies. Children are still needed as economic assets and social security in such places. Conversely, more and more countries have birth rates approaching zero: U.S. 0.77%, Canada 0.76%, Italy 0.3%. Many countries even have negative birth rates: Russia -.03%, Japan -.13%, Germany -.18% . We see a trend here: poor, violent, and undeveloped countries continue to have sky high birth rates, while stable, educated, and advanced countries have very small ones. The obvious solution is to spend our efforts making the world a more peaceful, educated, and developed place, rather than simply killing unborn babies.
On to the second part - is abortion a justifiable self defense measure against over population dangers? No. Pro presents a false dichotomy of solutions - either find more planets or stop having children. There are far more choices than that. We've already discussed the benefits that better technology will have on green energy and more efficient production/consumption ratios. We also know that higher education, economic stability, and access to birth control all reduce birth rates to sustainable levels. It's ridiculous to say that we need to stop having families and start aborting children in order to save our species.
Pro's final point ("I am not saying everybody who has a baby right now should have an abortion") begs another moral question - who gets to choose who aborts and who doesn't? Who has the authority to say "this baby lives, and that baby dies."? How can anyone justify that choice through logic and science? This brings us beyond population control and into the dangerous world of population engineering. Conceivably, governments do not only choose some babies to abort, but they choose WHICH babies to abort. Thus we can begin to see the Nazi-like desire for certain traits, which brings fearful consequences. Pro has a long way to go before this argument can be justified.
I'd remind Pro that the next round is their last round. I hope my opponent will present more than a single argument.
Thank you Con.
My first argument is based on young people who want to have an abortion, I'm think teenagers to early/mid twenties
A lot of people that age do not want to have children, having a child changes their lives completely. It sometimes means putting your career on hold temporarily or permanently. As soon has they have a child, that child become their primary focus in life, and sometimes that can ruin people. Normally, the successful parents are ones who try to have a child as opposed to people who accidentally have a child. Some of these people, who can contribute a lot to this world and who want to have lives and they want to be free and have fun and live their lives cannot because of the burden of having a child. I think this is a logical reason that somebody should be able to have an abortion, because they want to see what they can do in this world, and they want to have fun and be free, and not be restrained by a child. This may not be a moral argument, but it is logical
My other argument is about civil rights
Not allowing women to do what they feel is right with their bodies is taking away their civil rights. The government has no right to tell women that they have to continue pregnancy until birth. That could also lead to the government not allowing the use of birth control or forcing the use of birth control. If the government can force a women to continue having a children, what's to stop them from forcing birth without and medicine. The government cant control women's bodies, its their choice and their bodies and nobody can control them but themselves. If they think abortion is in their best interests, then how can a government stop them without going down the slippery slope of overcontrol
These are my final two arguments, I will now allow con to rebuttal.
== Rebuttal ==
1) I have no doubt that people want to have fun and be free. Yet wanting to have fun does not justify ending a human life. Pro has not challenged the human personhood status of a fetus, so we must assume they accept it. Therefore, Pro is arguing that the desire to "have fun and be free" is enough to overcome the maxim that it is wrong to kill another person. Yet they give no logical or scientific evidence for why this is so. I should be able to rest my case right there.
2) The government can and does tell people what they can do with their bodies....... all the time. If you try to sell your body for sex, you will be arrested. If you try to walk down the street naked, you will be arrested. If you infect yourself with a deadly pathogen, you will be quarantined. And as Rachel Dolezal found out, you apparently cannot dye your skin brown and join the NAACP. Women absolutely have civil rights. But so do unborn children. It's called the 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act and it states "If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall be punished for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."  Once again, Pro has given no scientific or logical evidence to disqualify the human status of a fetus, so we must accept it. Pro has also given not scientific or logical evidence for why a mother's civil rights should trump those of her unborn daughter. Furthermore, if the government has no right to tell a woman to continue her pregnancy, then it also has no right to tell a woman she must terminate her pregnancy. Yet, that is precisely the course of action Pro seems to advocate in Round 2 to control overpopulation.
My rebuttal is very simple: A fetus is a human life. Pro has given no evidence to doubt this claim. Therefore, Pro has failed to demonstrate why abortion does not violate the moral maxim against murder. The end.
In their previous argument, my opponent said "My rebuttal is very simple: A fetus is a human life. Pro has given no evidence to doubt this claim. Therefore, Pro has failed to demonstrate why abortion does not violate the moral maxim against murder. The end."
That is true, I never demonstrated how abortion doesn't violate the moral maximum, but at the beginning of the debate, my opponent asked me to give logical and scientific reasons for abortion, NOT moral ones.
I have given three logical/scientific reasons for abortion that my opponent is failing to see.
1. Overpopulation, which is a scientific reason that abortion could be a good thing. Not that I am saying ANYBODY should have an abortion to stop overpopulation, I am just saying that it is logical and scientific.
2. People want to be free in their lives. They want to live and having a child might ruin their lives. This is a logical reason. It is not very moral of a reason, but it is a reason.
3. Civil Rights. Why can the government control women's bodies? Why can they make a women give birth? If they can make them do that, they can make them do anything. This is a very logical argument for abortion
With those 3 arguments, I am proved that there are good logical/scientific arguments to justify abortion.
The whole debate was for me to be able to give any good reasons that satisfy the resolution, and I have done so.
I have not proved any moral reasons to justify abortion, but seeing as how that was not what this debate was for, I do not think that con should be able to use my lack of moral backing as a reason for me losing
Thank you for debating with me con, I very much enjoyed it.
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.