abortion is murder
Debate Rounds (5)
First of all, in some cases, killing in some cases would be considered wrong due to the amount of pain it causes, a point which Pro raised. But this does not apply to abortions. If the fetus is less than 20 months old, it is incapable of feeling pain and will not have to endure pain or suffering during the procedure. Even if the fetus is more than 20 months old, the procedure will usually be painless as it involves taking "abortion pills" which do not hurt the fetus physically and cause physical pain. Considering that more than 99% of abortions occur before the fetus is 20 months old, I think the pain that the fetus endures is irrelevant when discussing abortion.
Another reason why murder is considered wrong may be because it may cause suffering and pain to the deceased's friends and family. But in the case of an abortion, I would contend that an abortion does the opposite. There are many reasons why one would get an abortion, but the number 1 reason is because of premarital/ teenage sex. The couple think that they would not be able to support a baby financially or are not mature enough to support it. So they have no choice but to abort the baby to prevent their lives from being affected. So, abortion does the opposite of suffering and pain - it can relieve the couple of lots of future suffering if they think they cannot support it.
The final reason why murder is usually considered wrong is simply because it takes away a life. The person who is murdered could have had so much potential and could do so many things in his life, and murder is essentially robbing him of his future. But I think this argument does not make sense. If you think that murder is wrong because it denies an individual's potential or future, then many other things are punishable. For example, you could punish a couple for not having sex and having a baby, saying that if they had a baby, that baby would have had so much potential and could potentially contribute greatly to society. Thus this argument is not relevant when discussing abortion as well.
As such, I believe having an abortion is justified. I look forward to Pro's replies and rebuttals.
1. Pain. I'm sorry but it is a scientifically proven fact that babies do not feel pain before 20 weeks of being in their mothers' wombs. Pro cannot simply rebut this argument by saying "No one remembers what it was like being that young". In fact, some studies show that babies can only feel the sense of touch by 20 weeks, and only actually experience pain by 35 weeks.  And, as I have previously mentioned, About 99% of abortions take place before 20 weeks. 
2. Pro says "anesthetics may be given to the fetus, but I believe it would not block the pain of being destroyed." Why would Pro think this? The whole purpose of anesthetics is to minimise or prevent pain from being felt, which it does a good job of. Pro is right when he says that unborn babies feel more pain than any of us would, and that's exactly why doctors use anesthetics during abortions.
3. Abortions are usually carried out with the approval of both parents. There is no reason why a mother would abort a baby for no reason without the father's approval (unless she was raped). Most abortions in the US are carried out are because the couple feel they cannot afford the baby, the couple are concerned the baby will negatively affect their lives, or that they are having trouble with their relationship and want to avoid single parenthood. . For all the cases above, the father of the child has to give consent to the abortion as well as the mother. It is very rare that the mother decides to abort the baby for no reason without the father's consent. Only in the case of rape, in which case the mother has to file a legitimate police report, will the father not have to give consent for the abortion.  Therefore my point stands that abortions can relieve couples of future suffering and problems if they think they cannot support the child.
Here are my sources:
 - http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
 - http://www.abort73.com...
 - http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...
 - http://dadsrights.com...
I look forward to further discussion with Pro.
1. This is passing into the realm of morality slightly with the question Con has asked me, and as a person who subscribes to secular humanism for morality, I will try my best to answer Con's question. The main answer I would provide is that it causes pain and suffering to the baby's family. In the case of an abortion, however, as I have pointed out, most of the time an abortion is done intentionally to relieve future suffering of the couple/ woman. So the same argument for killing a toddler does not make sense when discussing an unborn baby in the mother's womb.
3. I don't understand the logic here. If a woman is raped, especially concerning statutory rape, most of the time the mother intentionally aborts the child to as she feels she cannot take care of the child well. Having the baby born would be punishing both the mother and the child as the mother has to spend time and money to raise the child while the child may not have a good childhood due to the mother's inability to take care of it sufficiently or as a single-parent. On the other hand, if the man had not raped the woman, there would be nothing wrong. So, aborting the baby is the equivalent of that, as it relieves the mother and child of future stress and suffering, and in both cases, the baby would not be born anyway. No difference.
Why I am pro-abortion, or pro-choice, is simply because a mother should have the choice to decide what she wants to do with her life. I'm not saying the baby is part of the mother, though, don't get me wrong. In the case of rape, as I have just explained, an abortion can be necessary to prevent future suffering. The same thing goes for underage sex and couples who can't support a baby. Imagine a scenario where a couple who can't even support themselves financially end up having a baby. We would be saying they were dumb to even want to have a baby given their financial situation. It's only going to add suffering due to the financial burden on their part as well as on the child for it may be neglected due to its parents having to work day and night to support it. So, what they should have done was not have a child until they can ensure a future for themselves and the child. That's exactly what an abortion does.
I look forward to Pro's conclusion in the final round of the debate and his rebuttals to my points.
EljayShaun forfeited this round.
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.