Debate Rounds (3)
In addition, abortion does not solve the deeper problems that have contributed to having an untimely pregnancy - problems such as low self-esteem, sexual exploitation, unchaste sexual behavior, poverty, lack of education and absence of moral guidance. In fact, the negative effects of abortion can actually compound these problems.
Finally, a society which allows the killing of its most vulnerable members, in the very place in all the world which should be for them to be safest and most nurtured - their own mothers' wombs - is incapable of cherishing and nurturing human life or valuing childhood and motherhood.
Because abortion kills innocent children, wounds mother and fathers and dehumanizes our society, the Pro-Life Action League opposes abortion under all circumstances.
Although I oppose abortion in most cases, I accepted this debate because Con's position is that abortion "can never be justified regardless of circumstances." That is the point I want to disagree with.
I don't think anything Con said substantiates his position. He argues that abortion is not justified to avoid hardship, or deal with problems like low self-esteem, sexual exploitation, promiscuity, poverty, lack of education, and absense of moral guidence. I agree with all that. But those do not exhaust the circumstances under which a person might get an abortion; therefore, they do not show that abortion "can never be justified regardless of the circumstances."
The one circumstance in which I think abortion is morally justified is in cases where the pregnancy puts the mother's life at risk. Abortion is justified in these cases for two reasons. First, it's justified because people have the right to preserve their own lives. Second, it's justified because if a pregnant woman dies, then so does her unborn, and it's better to save one life than to lose two.
Since there is a circumstance under which abortion is justified, Con's claim that abortion "can never be justified regardless of the circumstances" is false.
It sounds like we have a concession. :-)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mhykiel 3 years 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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: srsly? Pro gave convincing argument because Con was convinced.
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.