aside from rape, abortion should illegal in first trimester, but not investigated nor punished
Debate Rounds (3)
given there are no legal consequences involved, these are more about arguments on principle.
abortion should be illegal, because we should recognize that we should be giving the benefit of the doubt to human life. it is clear enough that we should outlaw it, but not clear enough that we should be punishing them. for example, to establish the uncertainty, note that a snowball is not a snow man, and a lego is not lego man. same could be argued for the cell in early pregnancy. at what point does a lego or snowball become the corresponding man? it's unclear there, as it could be said to be with personhood. but, on the other hand, the earliest cell does meet the requirements for what would constitute an 'organism', albeit it would probably be viewed as more like a parasitic organism given it must live off of the mother. and it's not like every other cell, given not every other cell can grow into a person. the pro and con about human life here are enough to say in principle we should defer to human life, but not clear enough to make any meaningful punishments for it.
human life is such a strong factor to be weighed, that it is not unreasonable for a person to be against abortion, and want to punish so as to deter and for justice's sake. but, i would not go that far. i would take that same reasoning, though, and argue that it's such a strong consideration, that it should at least be illegal, albeit with no legal consequences.
and the last reason it should be illegal in principal, is because the mother assumed the risk of pregnancy. having sex is something that can result in pregnancy. it's not like it just happened, getting pregnant, out of no where.
another reason why we shouldn't punish is deferment. while we are deferring to human life, we are respecting the autonomy of the woman involved. given there is uncertainty, who should decide? should the government decide? why not give the autonomy to decide to the person most affected by it, the mother?
plus,there are uncertainties involved, but there are other considerations as well. while the mother assumed the risk of pregnancy, she may have tried her best not to get pregnant, and got pregnant anyways. things happen, plus she has a lot of other things to consider like making sure she can hold down a job, or continue in school. or maybe she's poor and doesn't want to bring another kid into the mix. the common arguments in favor of abortion should be used here, as holistic approach to why she should be able to decide given the various moral considerations involved. but again, this stuff is just sufficient so as to not make legal consequences for the abortion, but not enough to make it legal.
The main difference between successful western countries and oriental despotisms is the rule of law, with a clear boundary between legal and illegal. Creating laws that are not going to be enforced would only serve to undermine our legal system.
our legal system would not be undermined. it would be strengthened. the laws would be clear, abortion is illegal, but there are no consequences for violating them. so there isn't an issue of lack of clarity. it also strengthens our system, cause it shows that we can be against something in principle, but it's not like we don't understand the countervailing considerations, and have our laws reflect that accordingly.
But who is "we"? Is it the politicians that will vote for this resolution? Their moral authority is rather weak these days. Is it the majority of voters? Even assuming that this resolution would accurately reflect their views, in pluralistic society those who disagree with the majority are still entitled to their own opinions.
In a free country, people in the minority are required to follow the laws set by the majority or face the penalties. However, they are not required to agree with them or recognize the higher moral ground of their supporters.
Therefore a "law" that carries no penalties for its violators would be just a demonstration of holier-than-thou attitude.
con concludes that any law that did as i said is a 'holier than thou' approach. but again ive said nothing that would indicate this. again, con is just reading too much into things, and blowing them out of proportion. and not even getting into much of anything in terms of actual substance in the debate, for why it should or shouldnt be that way etc.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 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:||3||1|
Reasons for voting decision: while pro had bad spelling, con simply did not have enough arguments to rebut what pro had within her first round.
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.