Instigator / Pro
0
1320
rating
264
debates
40.91%
won
Topic
#5320

In most cases, abortion should be legal

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
None
Contender / Con
0
1492
rating
333
debates
40.69%
won
Description

Abortion definition:

"the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy"

Round 1
Pro
#1
Definitions

Abortion
Termination of human pregnancy by killing a fetus, termination which is desired by the pregnant woman who carries that fetus in her body.

If you have a different definition, present it, but I would prefer to debate this one.

In most cases, abortion should be legal

Arguments

1. Banning abortion bans contraception and creates confusion
If someone uses a condom during sex, it will prevent the existence of a child. If someone has an abortion, it will prevent the existence of a child. There is no significant difference between using a condom and having an abortion, that would make one of these more morally wrong. As long as we hold that life is most important, preventing child's life from existing is wrong if done by action of putting on a condom or if done by action of having an abortion. Any action that prevents child's life from existing would be wrong. Child's life would be important and should exist. Therefore, any ban on abortion would soon result in ban on contraception and even more endangerment of women's rights. However, when we take position that fetus's life is not important enough to be gifted existence at the expense of woman's health and at the expense of society, that fetus should not be allowed to cause pain to the woman, we get a consistent system that protects women in society. When we take the position of bodily autonomy along with many other positions I will list in this debate, we get a much better system for all. Personhood should never be based on just one reason, but on many reasons combined. That system was proven to work in practice before. Abortion ban never worked anywhere.

2. Personhood
Only if we arbitrarily assign personhood to a fetus using arbitrary reasons, we would have a difference.
That difference would be arbitrary difference. However, it is much better to assign personhood at birth. This enables better birth control along with being capable of preventing birth of more humans in a way that does not cause great pain to anyone, but prevents great pain. Most abortions are done in early pregnancy, where fetus simply cannot be assigned personhood of equal importance as the born baby. Born baby is more developed, as born baby already passed the point of development which fetus didnt. Fetus is much less likely to survive than a born baby, which means that born baby has greater value. We will go through many reasons why assigning personhood at birth is much better than assigning it at conception, and much more considerate of the circumstances of life and the reality which is life.

3. Abortion helps with overpopulation
Abortion helps to reduce the amount of humans on Earth in a way that is safe, humane and doesnt harm humans who were already born, and prevents harm to those who would, if given birth to, suffer and die, drain planet's resources and cause more pollution and more waste. It is not justified to give birth to more humans and endanger the already existing ones. Planet's resources are limited. There is a point where there is too much human life on Earth. We are at that point. It is no longer good to produce more humans.

4. Abortion supports autonomy of woman's body and autonomy of society
Fetus depends upon woman's body. Woman's body does not depend upon a fetus. Woman created the fetus. The only reason why fetus exists is due to woman's action of creating it. Woman has a right to remove fetus from her body to prevent further expense of her body. Fetus exists at the expense of woman's body. Fetus does not have autonomy of its own, as it exists due to the expense of someone else, while someone else does not exist due to the expense of a fetus. Fetus does not support anyone's existence, but others support it's existence. This support is not mandatory, as no one has duty to support the existence of someone else at own expense. There is no autonomy if we have obligation to serve others. Fetus only exists due to woman creating it. To say that woman has obligation to serve it even more than that is a violation of woman's autonomy. Woman owns her own body. Fetus has no right to woman's body for the purpose of creating human life, any more than a rapist would have a right to woman's body for the purpose of impregnating her. Woman didnt intend to create that fetus. The creation of a fetus was a collateral damage from sex. Woman allowing or tolerating a fetus to use her body for some time is not in any way an obligation to extend that indefinitely. Such fetus has no right to cause damage to woman's autonomy anymore. Right to life does not mean right to use someone else's body.
Fetus depends upon society to work to sustain it. No one has obligation to be forced to work to sustain someone else, otherwise you just have slavery again.

5. Abortion reduces the amount of pain in the world
Example. You have to endure eternity in greatest pain. However, you can press the button to stop living and simply die and stop feeling pain forever. Everyone will press that button. This proves how life is worthless if filled with pain. This scenario applies to life as it exists today. Life is not a gift. Its torture.  Parents have a moral duty not to cause suffering to the child. Best way to do that is by not giving birth to the child in the first place. By law of morality: "Do not cause more pain than you remove". Giving birth causes more pain in the world than it removes. Abortion removes much more pain than it causes. By giving birth to a child, you are not saving a child from death. You are placing a child in the world where that child will suffer and die. More humans means more pain. Abortion is a painless way to prevent birth. It doesnt bother anyone much. It saves woman from birth pain. By preventing the birth of human, it saves a human from being forced to live, suffer and die. Most deaths are painful. Dying from cancer can take days of severe pain. Dying in car accident is extremely painful. Being raped is horrible. Drowning is horrible. Most deaths are simply horrible. Having an abortion prevents a painful death of someone. It prevents all suffering that person would have to go through if given birth to. Many people have to work extremely difficult jobs that make their lives painful. Child birth is immoral by all standards. Pain is the worst thing that can happen to a person. Even the lack of happiness is not worse than pain. This remains true under all circumstances, proving that preventing pain is the most important thing we can do. Statistically, there will always be the rate of people who will suffer in great pain if given birth to. We cannot say that we should subject people to great suffering so that some other people can be happy. That position would be sadistic and immoral, and would justify every crime on Earth.

6. Banning abortions doesnt stop most abortions
Abortion ban has little to no effect on reducing abortion rates. In countries where abortions are banned, abortions are still widely practiced, even more common than in countries where abortions are legal. It doesnt seem to stop women from seeking abortions. Governments also dont care enough to try to stop illegal abortions. Even if they did care, they wouldnt be able to do it as private abortions keep existing due to doctors earning lots of money from them. Abortion ban is impossible to enforce, as pregnant woman can either get abortion illegally, or go to other country where abortion is legal and have abortion there. This causes money to flow out of a country that bans abortions, further increasing poverty in countries that ban abortions.

7. Banning abortion endangers health of women and causes women to suffer and die
Banning abortions causes women to take risks and perform unsafe abortions. Banning abortions makes abortions much less safe. This places women at risk of death or severe health problem. Women suffer more if they are forced to get pregnant, forced to go through birth pains, forced to risk their lives and forced to raise the child they didnt want. It reduces women to property valued by its utility for others. As legal abortions became widely available, the numbers of women treated for septic abortion complications in emergency rooms and hospitals decreased markedly. Fetus is the point of development that endangers woman's health the most if it allows to continue. It endangers woman's life and causes pain more than any other point of development.

8. Banning abortions increases prison population
Banning abortions means that anyone caught doing the banned action would end up in prison. This would endanger their life, their rights and would increase their pain.

9. Banning abortions increases number of unwanted children and child abuse in the world.
Foster care is a horrible place that produces criminals. Anyone arguing that it is better for the child to be in foster care is terribly misled. Children in foster care are often abused. They lack basic relationships. Banning abortions increases child abuse and the neglect of children. Banning abortions, if it reduces abortions, it increases number of unwanted children that parents will not care about. It increases crime and the number of criminals, as well as number of victims.

10. Abortions reduce poverty and increases happiness
If woman has an abortion, she doesnt need to provide for the child for 18 years, which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Therefore, she will have more income for herself to increase her own happiness and work on herself, as opposed to her happiness being destroyed by being forced to raise a child she never wanted. There would be more poverty, as poor families would have difficulty providing for all children and each child would have less income being spent on that child individually.

With these arguments, I finish round 1.
Con
#2
Before I state my case, let's review these points from the opposing side. Now remember this individual's position is "most cases".

These points below are to support the betterment for society under legalization.

"1. Banning abortion bans contraception and creates confusion"

"2. Personhood"

"3. Abortion helps with overpopulation"

"4. Abortion supports autonomy of woman's body and autonomy of society"

"5. Abortion reduces the amount of pain in the world"

"6. Banning abortions doesnt stop most abortions

Abortion ban has little to no effect on reducing abortion rates. "

"7. Banning abortion endangers health of women and causes women to suffer and die"

"8. Banning abortions increases prison population"

"9. Banning abortions increases number of unwanted children and child abuse in the world."

"10. Abortions reduce poverty and increases happiness"

So being that all of this is for the betterment and good, increasing both those right, I argue why compromise like the opposing side is doing with the "most cases" rhetoric.

Allll cases of abortion should be legal if the reasons the opposing side has provided for me are good as argued.

Let it be said that the opposing side didn't see this type of position coming.

If those points promote the good that is touted, why wouldn't they be good for all cases?

That's the conflict the opposing side has gotten in to. Is something really that good to be legalized if you must compromise it, spare it?

Now your whole argumentation on good, the beneficial, fairness, favor is questioned. The credibility, accuracy, trustworthiness,reliability,consistency is challenged,questioned and uncertainty forms.

Whatever reason you spare it, why isn't that reason GOODDD enough for the remaining of cases?

Seems BETTER off to go all the way or not at all.

Now enough of that for now.

On the point of what "should" be.

What is to be ?

Whatever cause there was to it.

What should be the result from this cause and that cause?

Quick example, I should be dead as a result from a cause of a fatal decapitation.

An example for this topic, all abortion should be legal from the cause of the people voting in the policies to give all rights.

That was one of the points argued right. Extend those rights to all.

You can say most of abortion should be legal because of the cause of legislation from a petition of citizens who are strongly convicted from a basis of arguments to support the greater good.

However to eliminate the conflict in their argument and backfiring with refuting the cases of those citizens by reversing the argument negating their case giving the same credence to the counter, all of abortion should be legal because of the cause of legislation from a petition from the same citizens who are strongly convicted from a basis of the same arguments but to actually to support the greater good, the value has been reset to more accurately and consistently represent the value of increasing good, happiness, pleasure , decreasing pain, etc.

According to the points provided, that's what it's all about right.


Round 2
Pro
#3
All your arguments are wrong.

11. Abortion is self-defense

People have right to self-defense. Woman has a right to defend her life and end the pregnancy. Pregnancy endangers woman's life much more than abortion does. To say that people have no right to self-defense is nonsense. It is like me giving someone food which he needs to live, and then he starts endangering my life and causing me pain. It is even worse than this in case of pregnancy, since fetus has no same or equal value as born baby, nor can fetus survive without a woman where baby can survive without a woman by being cared for by others, nor does born baby guarantee to be causing pain to the woman. Fetus is an obvious greater threat to woman's life, as it guarantees her pain and adds to the endangerment of her life much more.

12. Abortion is a democratic right

It is most important that abortions in most cases are legal. Since we live in a democracy, will of majority is the most important. Laws should reflect the opinion of the majority. Most people agree that abortions in most cases should be legal. Banning abortions would be undemocratic tyranny. You cannot have democracy and ban abortions at the same time.

13. Abortion makes person morally right

Person is saved from personal responsibility of causing pain or bringing rapists into this world if a person has an abortion. If person doesnt bring more humans into existence, such person doesnt cause any pain that would be caused by action of bringing more humans into existence. Statistically, there is always a rate of rapists, murderers, abusers, those who torture others and those who get tortured by others, among the population that is given birth to. If a person was about to experience great pain for a long time, but could press a button to die painlessly instead, or with less pain, person would press that button. This proves how life filled with pain is worthless. Human life is filled with pain and struggle, and death itself is usually painful. Some people experience such great pain that it is unimaginable. Abortion prevents that.

14. Banning abortion violates the principle of justice

Justice says: What is banned for one is banned for all. Men dont endanger their life as a consequence of sex, and dont have to go through pains of child birth as a result of sex. Therefore, women also should not have to go through losing their lives and experiencing birth pains because of sex. Women should not be banned from life and from safety from pain when they have sex.

15. Banning abortion in most cases leads to abortion ban in cases of rape, abuse, incest and unintentional pregnancies

Assigning personhood before birth of a person brings many problems to victims of rape or abuse. There is simply no way to argue that abortion is murder of a child, and then to argue that woman who is raped has a right to abortion, that woman who is raped has a right to murder her child. Same applies for unintended pregnancies where contraception failed, and for pregnant teenage girls, and for cases of incest. They would all be denied of abortion.

16. Banning abortion affects those who had a miscarriage, or pregnancies where fetus died or will die, or cases where pregnancy endangers woman's life greatly

Women who have miscarriage would be judged. Miscarriage is sometimes very similar to abortion. If abortion is banned, women will be prevented from getting abortion in cases where fetus will die. Pregnancies where fetus died or will die require the removal of a fetus. Abortion ban makes this more difficult, as woman needs an approval from doctor. An approval she might not get. In cases where pregnancy endangers woman's life, she will not have the right to abortion, as she wont be the one making decision. She will need an approval, which she would be denied of.

17. Banning abortion creates judgment

Women will be condemned for having an abortion. They will be called evil and murderers. This will create a hostile environment for those women. It will increase their depression and suicide rate. It would also create fights in the family, and cause divisions within family.

18. Banning abortion affects poor people the most

When abortion is banned, rich will still have access to quality abortions. They will be able to travel to another country where abortion is legal. They will also be able to afford best illegal service in their own country. Poor people will not. Poor people will be forced to resort to cheapest illegal local abortions that are much less safe. Those cheaper abortions will still be more expensive than what abortions would cost if abortions were legal in that place. This makes poor people poorer and endangers their health, and allows private doctors to profit from poor people.

19. Banning abortion means forced pregnancies

Banning abortions forces pregnancy on women, and forces them to give birth. Woman should not be forced to get pregnant. Same way, woman should not be forced to give birth. Banning abortion means that women in abusive relationships could be forced to get pregnant, and then be denied of safe abortion, or be denied of any abortion and forced to give birth and forced to raise a child she never wanted and is not at fault for having. People should not be forced to reproduce. Reproduction is a decision that should be made by individual and not be forced upon that individual. If you are against forcing people to reproduce, you cannot be against abortions at the same time. Forced pregnancies increase woman's depression and harm her mental health.

20. Banning abortion produces more disabled children

If we assume that abortion ban would actually decrease the number of abortions, it then would produce more disabled children. This would create problems at the expense of entire society. Disabled children, who would otherwise be aborted, now have to be provided at the expense of society and at the expense of healthy children.

21. Abortion creates a healthier society

By aborting fetuses that have health issues and obvious disabilities, their suffering is prevented. However, in their place can come healthier fetuses that develop into healthy persons, improving an overall health in society.

22. Abortion ban violates privacy

To who does woman choose to give her body is her private matter. Government violating people's privacy usually creates a slippery slope where every previous violation is the reason for the next. Today, they ban abortions. Next day they ban contraceptions. Day after that they ban sex outside of marriage. Then they ban divorce, trans surgeries. It would be nonsense and naive to say that the people who want to ban abortions will stop at just that. Their ideology goes further.

23. Legalizing abortions helps children

Women who are forced to give birth when they are not ready or when they are too young or both will not be able to pursue education. They will also be less experienced and less willing, which will diminish their ability to raise a child. If a woman gives birth to a child when she is ready to give birth and raise a child, when she has more experience, when she is more educated, that will allow the child to grow in most optimal environment, greatly increasing the chances of that child having a good life, reducing the chance of abuse and neglect.

24. Fetus is much less sentient than a human baby

Fetus in early pregnancy feels no pain. It has no discomfort of any kind. It has no senses. It feels nothing. It knows nothing. There is no consciousness of any kind during early pregnancy. It is just like semen, and we dont say that putting on a condom is morally wrong if it prevents the creation of a conscious child by preventing semen to develop further. Personhood cannot be equal for fetus and for born baby. Value of a fetus in early pregnancy is much closer to the value of semen than to the value of born baby.

25. Circumstances are always different

It is impossible for the government in most cases to know circumstances better than woman does. It is impossible for the government in most cases to make better decision than that woman would. Every pregnancy happens under different circumstances. The woman is much more familiar with those circumstances.

26. Abortion ban will affect women with medical conditions

Some women are much more affected by pregnancy due to poor health. Giving birth would not only be worse for them than it would be for healthy women, but they would not be as capable of raising children.

27. Abortion ban would attack everyone's most basic rights

The fundamental right of every human is to own his body. If this right is violated, if others are capable of making decisions for his body, he no longer owns his body. He no longer has autonomy, but becomes property of utility for others. He is not an end, but means to an end. He can be forced to donate kidneys for the greater good of others. He can be forcefully conscripted for the military. Society that lives by destroying freedom is better not to live at all. Abortion ban is one step further towards violating individual's autonomy. It would be naive to think that it will be the last.

28. Some parents dont have enough money to raise children.

They need abortions to be legal. Those children would be thrown into foster care, where they would be neglected and abused. They would suffer a lot in life. Abortion would prevent such suffering, and help build a society where there is less suffering. It is not moral to condemn children to a life of pain and poverty.

29. People are driven to have sex by urges. They should not be punished for that.

Most people suffer when not having sex. People cannot give up upon that. Punishing people for having sex by forcing them into difficult, painful and dangerous situations is not moral. It is forcing people to choose between two pains, and leaves them with no option to be saved from pain. Torturing people is morally wrong. Banning abortion causes torture, so banning abortion is morally wrong.

Con
#4
So far the opposing side has not disagreed with my point. Makes sense because of the conflict I was communicating about with regard to compromising. If these points that the opposing side are so good for humanity, why stipulate a position of "most cases" to benefit from this good neglecting the remaining cases?

Could it be that it is not as good as the other side is making it or that the pressure is there to acquiesce? So therefore settle with a compromise in this political, legal deal with a 70/30 split, 80/20, 90/10, 95/5, 99/1, etc.

The opposing side started off this round with the same fallacy again just as in another debate  topic with the invisible ignorance fallacy being dismissive saying "your wrong", "that's absurd", "I don't believe you","that's false" and then drops my points to counter to.

The opposing side continues on with additional points like that changes anything or what I said. All these points are good. That's why I take the more accurate or valid position of all cases. We have to ask the question to the opposing side why is it felt that only most cases deserve this good.

The opposing side states that banning abortion causes torture so banning abortion is morally wrong. But this does not line up with the opposing side's case.
This lines up with my position. To line up with the opposing side it would be banning abortion for the most part/IN MOST CASES is wrong. By omission the opposing side is conceding to me admitting flat out the abortion ban is wrong but saying it should be legal in most cases is supporting or allowing a moral wrong thing in some cases. This is what you get with compromise. You get in part what you want, support, interested in or seek while getting another part that is not towards your favor or enthusiasm.

This is saying something morally wrong should not be illegal in some cases by saying something morally wrong should be illegal in most.
Think of it. Abortion banning is morally wrong so in most cases it should be illegal. I'm holding the opposing side to it. What is the difference, why is there apparently a different reason for some cases for the same morally wrong act?

What I was basically arguing in the first round is this discrepancy. The opposing side did not address it. A blind eye was turned to it. This round was a continuation of the first round plus the added fallacy. The opposing  side dug deeper into a hole with the "morally wrong" basis. The opposing side already had a hole poked in what was presented that was not patched up. In this round, the other side made the hole wider and deeper.

To dig yourself out and plug up that hole to make a solid foundation for your arguments to stand on, you have to explain away the outlier with some cases of abortion not being applicable to ever classify as morally wrong  for an abortion to be illegal to perform.

If you can't, concede on this one too.



Round 3
Pro
#5
All of your arguments for your position are wrong.

Abortion should be legal in most cases

30. To save a born baby or to save a fetus
If being forced to choose who to save, moral people would in great majority of cases choose to save a born baby over a fetus. This proves that born baby has greater value than a fetus.

31. People have a right to deny medical treatment
Person can reject medications, surgeries and treatments even when doing so is harmful for that person. This argument supports the bodily autonomy argument. People can do whatever they want with their bodies, and reproduction cannot be forced upon an individual.

32. If abortions are banned, people are more likely to be denied of euthanasia
When life is suffering, it is better to die. However, the same people who want to ban abortions are those who want to ban euthanasia and deny the right of people to painless death.

33. Abortion doesnt kill born humans
The idea that "abortion is wrong because killing born humans is wrong" is false, as abortion doesnt kill born humans, and the difference between born and unborn is clear and serves as justification for abortion.

Con
#6
I guess the opposing side believes the more points added for the opposing case without actually refuting what I'm saying is debating.

The opposing side might as well be here alone just talking to the readers. How many rounds are needed to make points?

Can't just make points in a debate and not argue and counter argue so in conclusion, the opposing side concedes indirectly with this following statement made:

"Punishing people for having sex by forcing them into difficult, painful and dangerous situations is not moral. "

The law punishes for what is illegally done and in this case would not be moral according to this.

"Banning abortion causes torture, so banning abortion is morally wrong."

So therefore abortion that is not illegal would not punish those by law and there be nothing morally wrong. 

But this is not the opponent's position because the opponent's position is abortion should be illegal in most cases. Banning abortion period would mean all cases. So the opponent has therefore conceded indirectly by abandoning the original position. The original stance of the opponent has been dropped. Whether the opposing side realizes it or perhaps just trying to ignore it or pretending not to concede.

Pay attention to all words folks. In topic titles, descriptions, rounds, etc.

Pay attention to ALL words.