The Instigator
budding_demonologist
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)
Anonymous

Abortion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Anonymous has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2018 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,548 times Debate No: 117086
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

budding_demonologist

Con

My stance on this debate (as stated above) is negative, Which, In this case, Means that I believe that abortion is immoral and should become illegal, With no exceptions.

Abortion: The intentional ending of a pregnancy. (1)

Illegal: not allowed by law. (2)

Immoral: morally wrong, Or outside society's standards of acceptable, Honest, And moral behaviour: (3)

Please, If you decide to accept this debate, First agree to the definition and understand my stance. If anything is unclear feel free to explain so in the comments. Please do not accept this debate to troll, And use precise language.

(1)- https://dictionary. Cambridge. Org/dictionary/english/abortion
(2)- https://dictionary. Cambridge. Org/dictionary/english/illegal#dataset-cald4
(3)- https://dictionary. Cambridge. Org/dictionary/english/immoral

Pro

I literally just finished closing statements for a similar debate of this manner with my opponent, So let's go for round two. Copy and paste will likely be abused here, A lot. I'll go over some observations before we proceed.

First, He states in absolutist terms that abortion should be criminalized in all circumstances, Without exception. In short, This means if I can find even one example where abortion shouldn't be made illegal, The resolution is is proven true. Be wary if he doesn't meet his own self described burden, And begins to make exceptions.

Second, He states that this should be done for moral reasons, However, There are several problems with this. First, He doesn't present any real way to decide whether an action is right or wrong. Moral theorists throughout history such as Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, And John Locke have had different interptations of how to decide what is right or wrong, Whether it be deotonology, Utilitarianism, Or the social contract. In order for my opponent to substantivelly state that abortion is immoral, He must provide some sort of framework. I'll operate under a utilitarian framework, Which is defined as providing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Second, Morality is ill defined in it of itself, as the theories and conceptions of what is right and wrong and differed from person to place to culture to religion to time, And everywhere inbetween, And everyone has a mutually exclusive interpretation of morals, All contradictory to one another (i. E. Prison time v. Chopping arms off for theft). Why should your morals represent the whole?

I'll go in depth into why abortion should be continue to be legal, And how we should maintain the status quo in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
budding_demonologist

Con

I accept my opponents framework of utilitarianism, And agree that this debate shall be centered on a utilitarian view on morality. Since my opponent did not clarify which form of utilitarianism view that will be used in this debate, I will assume, And base my arguments upon, The strong rule utilitarianism view. The rule utilitarianism view will, By the moral standards of utilitarianism, Create the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people in the long term [1].

Also, For the sake of clarification, I believe that Abortion should be both illegal, And is immoral. Not, However, That abortion should be illegal because it"s immoral.

Since this debate is to be conducted in a manner that views morality in a rule utilitarianistic way I must make the case that the greatest amount of good will come to the greatest amount of people if abortion was illegal. This entails that by banning abortion outright, The majority of the population of the United States will be benefited positively.

There is no possible way to tell whether a unborn child will be the cause of happiness, Or be happy themselves, Before they are born; which means there is no way to say whether having an abortion will prevent any more suffering than continuing with the pregnancy and giving birth. There is studies to say that the mental health of those who undergo abortion can be negatively affected [2] but none say that those denied such procedure are any more negatively affected in the long run. If we abort an unborn child, We are essentially preventing any happiness caused by, Or felt by, That child in the future. 10. 57 - 18. 85% of all pregnancies result in abortion [5, 3], Which means that that"s more than six and a half hundred thousand lives lost every year. Americanadoption. Com [6] states that there are at least 200 people at any one time who are on the waiting list for adoption, This includes infertile woman, Homosexual couples, And those who are having trouble conceiving children. These parents have taken the time to carefully decide whether or not adoption would be the best option for them, And decided that it was. The happiness of these people would be benefited greatly with children. People who are considering abortion could, Instead, Offer their children for adoption. This would provide good to the adoptive parents, The adopted child [7, 8] (having loving parents), And the biological parents (knowing their child is with a loving set of carers. ) Studies also show that children who are adopted young have greater average academic standards, Which in the future will amount to an infinite more amount of good than a dead fetus [8]. Overall, There is no reason why abortion will bring a greater amount of happiness than adoption.

In the cases of children who are diagnosed with disabilities (eg. Autism, Down Syndrome or other developmental or physical disability) many say that the mother should have the option of aborting their child, However this won"t create a greater world in the future, But rather a less prepared one. It is almost common knowledge that the population of children diagnosed with Down syndrome is decreasing, And this is because 62 - 90% of children its Down Syndrome are aborted [12]. The decrease of people with Down syndrome, And in turn the amount of families with children with Down syndrome, Is a decrease in the happiness given by those children to the world. Families that include children with Down syndrome are generally happy families [10, 11] and these children are a chance for us to learn about compassion. A population of people who know compassion is a population that is much more likely to thrive in the future, As compassion is a necessary quality in a striving human population because compassion is the secret to both health and happiness [13]. Also, With the decrease of people with Down syndrome and other disabilities (due to abortion), We as a population will become much less prepared for people like them, Since there will continue to be much less people with Down Syndrome and other disabilities with the legalisation of abortion in the population.

I do consider a fetus as a person, As it has a unique and distinctive human DNA. The fact that it has no consciousness, Nor brain activity does no change the fact that it is a living human being. People who are in a comatose state rely on life support and have little brain activity, Yet are still considered valid human beings, So does someone who is brain-dead, Which is why they are commonly referred to as a "brain-dead person. " The fetus does rely on the support of the mother, In the same way a person in a comatose state relies on life support however it does not mean that the fetus is a part of the mother"s body.

This is why, Through a utilitarianistic view, Abortion is immoral, Not why it should be illegal. I will try to address that in the next round.

Sources
[1] Iep. Utm. Edu. (2018). Utilitarianism, Act and Rule | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [online] Available at: https://www. Iep. Utm. Edu/util-a-r/#H4 [Accessed 1 Aug. 2018].
[2] American Pregnancy Association. (2016). Emotional Side Effects After an Abortion. [online] Available at: http://americanpregnancy. Org/unplanned-pregnancy/abortion-emotional-effects/ [Accessed 1 Aug. 2018].
[3] Johnston, R. (2017). Percentage of pregnancies aborted in the United States--by states. [online] Johnstonsarchive. Net. Available at: http://www. Johnstonsarchive. Net/policy/abortion/statesabrate. Html [Accessed 1 Aug. 2018].
[4] Lawrence, B. , Finer, L. , Frohwirth, L. , Dauphinee, A. , Singh, S. And Moore, A. (2005). Reasons U. S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 37(3), P. 112.
[5] Facts, A. (2018). Topic: Abortion in the U. S. . [online] www. Statista. Com. Available at: https://www. Statista. Com/topics/3218/abortion-in-the-us/ [Accessed 1 Aug. 2018].
[6] Americanadoptions. Com. (2018). American Adoptions - How Many Couples Are Waiting to Adopt? . [online] Available at: https://www. Americanadoptions. Com/pregnant/waiting_adoptive_families [Accessed 1 Aug. 2018].
[7] FamilyEducation. (2018). How Happy Are Adopted Children? . [online] Available at: https://www. Familyeducation. Com/life/preparing-adoption/how-happy-are-adopted-children [Accessed 2 Aug. 2018].
[8] Americanadoptions. Com. (2018). American Adoptions - Being Adopted - A Look at the Happiness of Children Growing Up Adopted. [online] Available at: https://www. Americanadoptions. Com/pregnant/growing_up_adopted_study_highlights_health_happiness_of_adopted_children [Accessed 2 Aug. 2018].
[9] Phys. Org. (2018). 92 percent of families with adopted children are satisfied with their decision. [online] Available at: https://phys. Org/news/2012-02-percent-families-children-decision. Html [Accessed 2 Aug. 2018].
[10] Broek, A. (2014). How a child with special needs brings happiness to a parent's life - Chatelaine. [online] Chatelaine. Available at: https://www. Chatelaine. Com/health/how-a-child-with-special-needs-brings-happiness-to-a-parents-life/ [Accessed 2 Aug. 2018].
[11] Heasley, S. (2011). Down Syndrome Study Finds Families Are Happy - Disability Scoop. [online] Disability Scoop. Available at: https://www. Disabilityscoop. Com/2011/09/22/down-syndrome-families-happy/14087/ [Accessed 2 Aug. 2018].
[12] Natoli, J. , Ackerman, D. , McDermott, S. And Edwards, J. (2012). Prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: a systematic review of termination rates (1995-2011). Prenatal Diagnosis, 32(2), Pp. 142-153.
[13] Seppala, E. (2012). The Best Kept Secret to Happiness & Health: Compassion. [online] Psychology Today. Available at: https://www. Psychologytoday. Com/au/blog/feeling-it/201211/the-best-kept-secret-happiness-health-compassion [Accessed 2 Aug. 2018].

Pro

I’ll first marshall my own case for why abortion shouldn’t be criminalized in all circumstances, And second, Point out the multitudes of flaws in what my opponent has previously said.

Part A is Case

First, As according to the Chicago Tribune, 1/4 American women have had an abortion by the time that they are 45. If abortion was to be prosecuted as murder, Give or take 41 million Americans would be incarcerated (likely for first degree murder). The impacts of such would be twofold. First, The US economy would almost certainly crash as the US has lost an eighth of its labor force, And as America is the world's largest economy and accounts for 25% or so of the world GDP, The global economy would crash, Wreaking havoc and chaos throughout the world. Second, Women's rights would be devastated, As equal representation of men and women in the labor force would be a thing of the past because of the millions incarcerated or on death's row.

Second, My opponent proposes an outright ban on abortion without exception. May I ask, What should be done with victims or rape or incest (which is more often than not rape)? And what should be done when the life of the mother is in danger? Would you take the mother or the child?

Part B is Refutation

Undergoing an abortion doesn’t cause negatively mental health long term. Pulitzer Prize winner Pam Belluck of the New York Times explains, “Researchers followed nearly 1, 000 women who sought abortions nationwide for five years and found that those who had the procedure did not experience more depression, Anxiety, Low self-esteem or dissatisfaction with life than those who were denied it. ” Even if were so, Adverse psychological effects can be too be caused by being forced to keep a child you don’t want, Or be deemed criminal and targeted by the state for incarceration (or oft capital punishment if one considers it to be murder)

He then proceeds to state that, As 85% of pregnancies result in abortion, 6. 5 million have been lost to abortion, Contributing this to its legal status in the West. However, This must be put in context of alternatives. According to Siobhan Fenton of the Independent, Research published in the Lancet medical journal found when comparing rates of abortions to the legal status of it, There was no correlation between the two, And rates of procedures were similar regardless of legality. To do so only serves to increase maternal mortality, Complications, And infections as the practice is moved underground. Much like illicit drugs, Whether or not the practice is legal, People will still undergo said procedure: we must ensure safety for it. To do otherwise would increase the net number of deaths, And cause unnecessary inhumane trouble for those who survive.

He states that we should keep them alive for adoption purposes, To allow those who cannot have children to have some sort of offspring. However, The numbers he has provided don’t make a hint of sense, As at least 200 people are on the waiting list for adoption, But earlier says that 6. 5 million abortions take place worldwide. I’m sorry, But 99. 99% of said children would be placed into foster care, Overwhelming the system with excess children. Millions of children would likely be turned away, Making them go to the streets.

Neurological diversity is something that should be cherished, However, Again, Abortions will simply go underground and occur at the same rate, Meaning that there’s no real benefit towards it.

https://www. Independent. Co. Uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/women-in-countries-where-abortion-is-illegal-just-as-likely-to-have-one-as-countries-where-it-is-a7025671. Html
https://www. Nytimes. Com/2016/12/14/health/abortion-mental-health. Html
https://www. Nbcnews. Com/health/health-care/abortion-rates-go-down-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n858476
http://www. Chicagotribune. Com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-perspec-chapman-abortion-murder-williamson-homicide-0429-20180427-story. Html
Debate Round No. 2
budding_demonologist

Con

I would like to begin by refuting the arguments that my opponent brought up in the previous round.

I would like to remind my opponent that I stated in my stance and definition that abortion should be illegal, But I never stated that it should be prosecuted as murder. When I say "illegal" I meant "not allowed by law" as stated in the first round. The consequences of breaking the proposed law would be up to the discretion of the judge, But I would assume that it would be charged as some variation of infanticide [2, 3]. Of course it wouldn't"t always be the woman themselves who would be charged in many cases, But the doctor or clinician performing the illegal abortion, Who may instead face charges of homicide [1]. The charges on infanticide are less about punishing the woman, And more about the helping the mother, And few rarely have prison sentences, So my opponents argument about a crash of the "global economy" would be rendered false.

Rape and incest amounts to 0. 5% [4] of all abortions, Which is never a valid case to argue for a law, And parents (whether it be the rapist or the people committing incest) should be punished by law, Not the innocent child. In cases of the mother life being endangered, This relies on the intent of the action being performed. If the child is being removed from the mother to save said mothers life, This isn"t classified as an abortion as the intent of the action is the saving of the mothers life. If the death of the child is a by product of saving the mothers life, Than that wouldn't"t be considered abortion. This is called the principle of double effect, And I suggest that my opponent takes the time to research this [5].

It was never stated in my previous arguments that having an abortion will amount in negative health, Rather I stated that they have the same health as those denied abortion in the long term.

I also stated that 10. 57-18. 85% of pregnancies end in abortion, Not 85% as my opponent said I stated. Also, Six and a half hundred thousand live are lost, Not six and a half million as he also said I stated. Whilst I did say that there were 200 on the waiting list for adoption, I meant 200 were actively approved for adoption at any one time. There truly aren"t great statistics on the amount of couples waiting to adopt, But some statistics estimate somewhere around one and two million are trying adoption. This means that currently for every child up for adoption, There are thirty six couples to adopt them. Clearly there is high demand but low supply. [6, 7]

The cause of the decrease of abortions since its legalisation has been widely debated, But the answer is not simply "it occurs less because it"s legal. " There are a variety of possible causes to why the decrease of abortions has occurred. Some say that it"s because of the rise in effective contraceptives [8], And some say it"s because of the rise of the pro-life movement, But by making abortion illegal it does not necessarily mean it will increase underground again. I would also like to raise the point that just because something will continue anyway does not mean that we should allow its legalisation. Manslaughter isn"t legal, Yet it still occurs "underground", Does this mean that manslaughter should be legalised?

My opponent has yet to give me a reason to why, Under a utilitarianistic moral view, Abortion should be considered moral.

I would now like to present my case on why abortion should not be legal.

The US government does not consider either homicide, Nor infanticide, As legal, So is there any reason to distinguish abortion from these crimes? Homicide is the intentional killing of one person by another, And by definition abortion is no different. The government is not being consistent in the sense that homicide is illegal, And yet abortion isn"t. A fetus is a living human, As I stated in the last round, The intentional killing of this form of human life shouldn"t be justifiable by law. As I did state earlier on in this round, Abortion should be charged similarly with infanticide, Possibly less. Those charged with this form of homicide wouldn't"t necessarily face prison time, But rather a form of mandatory counselling [9].

There is no valid reason for a law allowing a form of living human life to be a ended in favour of the convenience of a small amount of others, When that form of living human life has a potential to cause an infinite amount more good than the inconvenience it caused a small group of people. Instead of abortion we should be paying more attention on supporting these woman in making the right decisions, And being able to cope with the trials of childbirth. In this day and age woman who go though unplanned pregnancy aren"t shown many other alternative to abortion, Which is a definite problem.

Sources
[1] Merriam-webster. Com. (2018). Definition of HOMICIDE. [online] Available at: https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/homicide [Accessed 4 Aug. 2018].
[2] Merriam-webster. Com. (2018). Definition of INFANTICIDE. [online] Available at: https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/infanticide [Accessed 4 Aug. 2018].
[3] Definitions. Uslegal. Com. (2018). Infanticide Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc. . [online] Available at: https://definitions. Uslegal. Com/i/infanticide/ [Accessed 4 Aug. 2018].
[4] Lawrence, B. , Finer, L. , Frohwirth, L. , Dauphinee, A. , Singh, S. And Moore, A. (2005). Reasons U. S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 37(3), P. 112.
[5] Cavar, P. (2015). Abortion, The Mother"s Life, And The Principle of Double Effect | Culture of Life Foundation. [online] Culture of Life Foundation. Available at: http://www. Cultureoflife. Org/2015/11/19/abortion-the-mothers-life-and-the-principle-of-double-effect/ [Accessed 4 Aug. 2018].
[6] Riler, K. (2012). Thirty-Six Couples Wait for Every One Baby Who is Adopted | LifeNews. Com. [online] LifeNews. Com. Available at: http://www. Lifenews. Com/2012/07/09/thirty-six-couples-wait-for-every-one-baby-who-is-adopted/ [Accessed 4 Aug. 2018].
[7] Americanadoptions. Com. (2018). American Adoptions - Being Adopted - A Look at the Happiness of Children Growing Up Adopted. [online] Available at: https://www. Americanadoption
[8] Healthline. (2018). Fewer Abortions: Why Rate Is Decreasing. [online] Available at: https://www. Healthline. Com/health-news/why-abortion-rates-have-decreased#5 [Accessed 4 Aug. 2018].
[9] The Conversation. (2018). The law of infanticide is supposed to provide merciful treatment for vulnerable mothers. [online] Available at: https://theconversation. Com/the-law-of-infanticide-is-supposed-to-provide-merciful-treatment-for-vulnerable-mothers-100539 [Accessed 4 Aug. 2018].

Pro

I'm sorry, The random capitalization brought forth by Debate. Org made it incredibly dificult to read what my opponent wrote previously, So please forgive me for any mistakes made in reading his numbers.

Before we get into the breadth of the argument, It's fair to point out that one of the central presumptions of my opponent is that upon abortion's criminilazation, The net number of pregancies terminated will be lowered. Otherwise, He isn't preserving pregancies to any means, But simply moving abortion underground, As shown by aforementioned evidence by the Independent which hasn't been challenged by my opponent. This is significant because no matter what he may marshall to the contary, Abortions will continue at the same rate, Meaning that there will not be an excess of children up for adoption nor will neural diversity be preserved. His only real response to this has been that "because something will continue anyway does not mean that we should allow its legalisation. " However, This wasn't an argument for its legalisation, But rather against its criminalization. Nothing in regard to the rate of abortion will change, Only moved to the criminal underworld with less safeguards causing an increase in mortallity (which is really quite marvelous for those who call themselves prolife).

While on this point, He tries a faulty reductio ad absurdum, Asking whether manslaughter should be made legal simply because it will still occur underground. However, He fails to realize that while certain laws do prevent certain actions from taking place (as in the case of rape, Torture, Murder, Theft, Perjury etc. ) while others do not (illicit drugs, Abortion, Etc. ). For example, As according to Dennis Henigan of the Daily Beast, "in one survey, incarcerated felons who had not carried weapons during the commission of their crimes were asked why they decided against being armed. Fifty-nine percent chose the response “Against the law. ”

I'll now deal with rebuttals against my own case.

He says that abortion would be tried at the discresion of the judge, And at most would get mandatory consueling. Several problems with this. First, Under the current legislative and executive branches, Abortion would almost certainly be legislated to be murder in order to appeal to the prolife and evangelical of their base. To do otherwise would be political suicide for the midterm elections. Second, Even if it didn't have the same punishment as murder, The same effect would take place. May I ask how the judcial system will take 41 million more cases every year? Though estimates vary, Most place the number of liscened consuelers at less than 1 million, As compared to the 41 million American women who have had an abortion. Third, No matter the consquences, It would still be devestating for women's rights, Because 1/4 of all women would be punished for crimes, Being permantley put onto their criminal record.

If he wants any sort of plausible argument, He must show how it is even possible to make abortion illegal with server adverse consquences.

Though rape and incest make only a minority of abortions, This isn't to diminish their importance. The US President makes up 99. 99% of the total population of the US yet there are plenty laws regarding him. Regardless, He makes no argument against why they shouldn't be able to get an abortion. Why couldn't we simply make exceptions for those two?
Debate Round No. 3
budding_demonologist

Con

My opponent continues to insist that by criminalizing abortion will just move abortion underground where they will continue at the same rate. His underlying assumption is that the reason for the decrease in abortion rates is because of the law passed to allow abortions. Abortions actually increased rapidly after Roe vs Wade [3, 4], And the decrease in only slightly lower than it was before the decision. This decrease is primarily because of the increase in the effectiveness and use, Of contraceptives [1], The prevalent lower pregnancy rates [10], And the decrease of the social stigma towards childbirth outside of wedlock. This decreasing trend wouldn"t be affected if abortion was illegal, As contraception would continue to be more developed and used as the years pass. Whilst it may continue underground for a period of time, The abortion rates should steadily decrease at the same rate that they are now.

As that rate of abortion decreases, The amount of abortions and mortality rates of the mother will in turn also decrease. Whilst my opponent may say that their have been greater rates of mortality before abortion became legal, He does not consider the possibility that they may decrease when going from having abortion legal, To the having it illegal. Take the example of Chile. In 1988 abortion was legal in Chile, And a year later, In 1989, Abortion was illegal under all circumstances. Studies show that although Chile made abortion illegal, The maternal mortality rates (MMR) are some of the lowest in the world [2, 5, 6], Which is contrary to common belief that by making abortion illegal you are increasing the MMR in that country.

I am also not debating for the criminalisation of abortion, But rather that it should be made illegal. Take the example of wearing a seat belt. By not wearing a seat belt, You are essentially breaking the law by not wearing your seat belt. Although this is illegal, You are not considered as a criminal. Abortion should have legal consequences through the eyes of the law. Whilst I realise that many pro-life supporters push for the criminalisation of abortion, And the prosecution of it as murder. I am not arguing this point, And am instead arguing that it should be illegal, And that it is immoral. The problem with current law is that having an abortion is considered less in the eyes of the law than not wearing your own seat belt. Abortion very much involves the deliberate termination of a human life, And that is considered as a lesser offence than not wearing your seat belt. Just because the effect of having a certain act viewed as illegal may possibly turn out negatively does not mean that the law should instead view that act positively. Infanticide is an act that is viewed by the law as negative, Yet is less about punishing the person and more about helping them [7, 9], And providing a much needed view on what is considered right and wrong by the law. The same, If less, Would be applied to abortion. Infanticide is less of a crime than homicide, So I would assume that abortion would be less of a offence as infanticide.

People who fall pregnant due to rape or incest, The problem is with the rape and incest. The child should not be punished for the wrong of its parents. The is no reason that a child born out of rape should be denied the right to life.

I would also like to point out that my opponent has yet to provide a reason as to why abortion is not immoral.

Sources
[1] Crockett, E. (2017). The abortion rate is at an all-time low " and better birth control is largely to thank. [online] Vox. Available at: https://www. Vox. Com/identities/2017/1/18/14296532/abortion-rate-lowest-ever-because-birth-control [Accessed 6 Aug. 2018].
[2] EurekAlert! . (2014). The Chilean abortion paradox: Even when prohibited by law, Abortion rates decrease. [online] Available at: https://www. Eurekalert. Org/pub_releases/2014-11/mi-tca110614. Php [Accessed 6 Aug. 2018].
[3] Ingraham, C. (2017). [online] Washington Post. Available at: https://www. Washingtonpost. Com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/17/abortion-falls-to-lowest-level-since-roe-v-wade/? Utm_term=. 69e08274ef91 [Accessed 6 Aug. 2018].
[4] Kliff, S. (2014). Thirteen charts that explain how Roe v. Wade changed abortion rights. [online] Washington Post. Available at: https://www. Washingtonpost. Com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/22/thirteen-charts-that-explain-how-roe-v-wade-changed-abortion-rights/? Utm_term=. E1bab798e93d [Accessed 6 Aug. 2018].
[5] Koch, E. , Thorp, J. , Bravo, M. , Gatica, S. , Romero, C. , Aguilera, H. And Ahlers, I. (2012). Women's Education Level, Maternal Health Facilities, Abortion Legislation and Maternal Deaths: A Natural Experiment in Chile from 1957 to 2007. PLoS ONE, [online] 7(5), P. E36613. Available at: http://journals. Plos. Org/plosone/article/file? Id=10. 1371/journal. Pone. 0036613&type=printable [Accessed 6 Aug. 2018].
[6] LifeSiteNews. (2014). This country banned abortion and now, Abortion promoters can"t believe their eyes! . [online] Available at: https://www. Lifesitenews. Com/opinion/this-country-banned-abortion-and-now-abortion-promoters-can't-believe-their [Accessed 6 Aug. 2018].
[7] Nedim, U. (2015). Should Mothers Who Kill Their Babies Ever Escape a Prison Sentence? . [online] Sydney Criminal Lawyers. Available at: https://www. Sydneycriminallawyers. Com. Au/blog/should-mothers-who-kill-their-babies-ever-escape-a-prison-sentence/ [Accessed 6 Aug. 2018].
[8] Sifferlin, A. (2017). Http://time. Com. [online] Time. Available at: http://time. Com/4639424/abortion-rate-texas/ [Accessed 6 Aug. 2018].
[9] The Conversation. (2018). The law of infanticide is supposed to provide merciful treatment for vulnerable mothers. [online] Available at: https://theconversation. Com/the-law-of-infanticide-is-supposed-to-provide-merciful-treatment-for-vulnerable-mothers-100539 [Accessed 6 Aug. 2018].
[10] Thomson-DeVeaux, A. (2015). The Abortion Rate Is Falling Because Fewer Women Are Getting Pregnant. [online] FiveThirtyEight. Available at: https://fivethirtyeight. Com/features/the-abortion-rate-is-falling-because-fewer-women-are-getting-pregnant/ [Accessed 6 Aug. 2018].
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
Pppossum
The main point here is that you consider:
-an embryo and foetus to have the same rights as a fully developed human
-the circumstances arround the pregnancy or the mother are not important

I, M not going to talk about right or wrong as those are subjective concepts. But we all agree that murder can, T be accepted as it is against anybody, S interest. And this interest is the key. As for self defense it is ok to murder, You are protecting your interest.

When is ok to murder for self defense we are accepting that not all lifes have the same value at all times. We even benefit quantity over quality. It's ok for 5 volunteers to lose their lifes in a faulty nuclear reactor only for THE CHANCE to save hundreds of citicens. Half of them will have a slow and painful death as they are irradiated already.

And that also states that we prefer life over quality of life. People who's in pain and doesn, T have access to paliatives, Or paliatives can, T apply in this specific case, Are left to suffer. When it comes to survival we lose all our empathy and sensibility. That's proof of our obsession with indiscriminate OBLIGATION to life.

And this obligation extends to every aspect of our lives. Living means obligation to integrate in society and follow the law. In a society that's not perfect and a woman can get beaten and raped and forced to give birth, Yet society will blame her for wanting to abort instead of blaming the rapist, The lack of security in the streets or the corruption that takes the funds aimed for public education, Ending with people who things the DNA is the source of human rights in a vacuum, Ignoring social, Economical, Political or ethical matters that are linked directly or indirectly to it.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
budding_demonologist
Just reminding you that u need to post your argument in the next hour.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
budding_demonologist
@LoveRichardDawkins Technically all you are is a bunch of cells, And you have human rights
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
LoveRichardDawkins
I fail to see how a bunch of cells has human rights. If this were the case, Every time I brush my arm and thousands of skin cells fall of we would be calling it a genocide.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Forgot to cite this, Sorry

https://www. Thedailybeast. Com/the-3-worst-arguments-against-gun-control
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
ommadon
@budding_demonologist That sounds like your moral stance against moral stances being inconsistent, Or at least, Regarding moral stances being inconsistently established/enforced/laid out/etc. .

But it's no surprise to me that moral stances aren't generally consistent or are inconsistent. For one, As I said, People tend to change their stances based on the situation, I. E. How and in what way it serves them versus serving others. That's just how people tend to be. Secondly, Principle-based ethics is not always a pragmmatic way of dealing with stuff, And so every now and again, Principles will force people into a challenging or uncomfortable "corner", Which then leads people to make exceptions regarding their principles (and I think it's better (at least in some cases) to be more flexible and to base your stance on a given situation rather generalise a stance to all situations).
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
32doni32nido32
Both my sister and I were adopted into the same family (our birth families are separate, Though). She has severe bipolar disorder and has taught me so many valuable lessons that have changed me to be a better person. But, Her birth mom almost aborted her. My sister was too far developed when her mom went to the abortion clinic, But if she had been aborted, I have no idea where I would be without her. And as for me, Though my birth mom never went as far as my sister's birth mom did, My mom did consider having me aborted.
But there's some strange thing: I'm, Like, Glad that I'm living. Crazy, Right? ! Who would've thought? !

So yeah. I'm not pro-choice unless the mother is at risk of losing her own life if she went through with the pregnancy.

Most people consider killing as immoral. If that is what you believe, Then you should also think that abortion is immoral as it technically is killing. Besides, There are couples that are looking to adopt. There are gay couples that are ready to, As well as women who can't have children.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
budding_demonologist
@ommadon Yes, It is true that people"s views on morality are subjective, But you would think that the government would be consistent about their view on morality, And thus laws would be made consistently. If the government views one thing as morally wrong, Hat same stance on morality should be applied to all other laws. The government shouldn"t be inconsistent with their overall stance on morality. If that makes sense.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
ommadon
@budding_demonologist Sure, The government's laws could be morally inconsistent (and that's not uncommon in general for many people I think); and that wouldn't make morality objective either btw, Since laws are subjective (either created or maintained/enforced by minds).
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
John_C_1812
No bettBoelkens budding_demonologist is say that the admission of guilt is say a criminalized state explained is already the obstacle of morality. We are having a debate, Not trial and you are pledging an alibi for the admission of guilt which is damming to the confession as being understood to be real.

Pregnancy abortion was never legal, Pregnancy abortion simply has a poor prosecution rate as murder. We are creating a United States formed on organized crime. First there is no reason all woman need to admit guilt of a crime as a united state. Second the judicial branch of governing has/had an obligation to contain self-incrimination form the democratic voter.

There is an obstruction by use of lie to evade malpractice from being exposed.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.