Instigator / Pro
1
1500
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#6625
Abortion should be illegal and it cannot be justified.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
CRXC3000
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Twelve hours
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
A fetus is simply a human baby and abortion is the forcible termination of the life of that innocent human being. This makes abortion murder. Murder is clearly wrong and cannot be justified. This is a simple issue with a simple solution. There is no moral ground where one can justify abortion.
I argue that it can't be completely illegal because pregnancy does not always occur between two adults of age or consenting. Two extreme cases come to mind immediately.
First, there's rape. If the victim is a woman, not only will there be resentment from mother to child, as it was born from a traumatic event in her life, but the child will in most cases lack a paternal figure. This already sets up the child to live in dire mental conditions, and you can't always count on the victim's parents being there.
Second, there's teenage pregnancy. It be an extension of the previous case. They are more likely to face life-lasting consequences due to the pregnancy, or even death (of either/both mother and child). (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy)
Most, if not all teens, don't have the financial capacities or the body to handle a pregnancy. So in this case, while there could be maternal love, you risk there not being a baby to receive that love anyway or a mother to provide it.
If abortion is completely illegal, with room for failure, you could maybe "force" people to be more careful about creating pregnancies. But outliers will always exist (not a few ones) and such a law can actually endanger the lives of women rather than allow them a space to safely express their worries and receive the adequate help.
Round 2
I will address both of your claims separately, as they are both thought provoking and important concerns; does rape justify abortion, and does teen pregnancy make abortion right.
Firstly, rape is an unimaginably evil crime. It can cause lifelong trauma in the victim, and the person willing to do that should be punished to the fullest extent. However, I do not see any logic or reasoning that could make the baby guilty of the crime of their father. Also I won’t spend much time on this since the debate is whether it can be justified in any circumstance, but using rape to justify abortions in general is illogical due to the fact that only 0.4% of abortions are attributed to rape. Going more into detail on your argument, you stated that the child would likely not have a paternal figure. The national fatherhood initiative states that 1 in 4 children do not have an active paternal figure. Despite this, I believe that their lives matter just as much as a child with a father.
Secondly, in my opinion the more far fetched argument; “teenage pregnancy justifies abortion”. In your argument you stated that birth at this age has an increased risk of death in the child. My question for you is why does this justify the guaranteed death of the child? Similar to the other argument I would also like to point out that 0.3% of abortions are performed due to risk to the life of the mother.
In the case of financial struggles and “resentment” towards the child, adoption is a viable option. It preserves the precious life of the innocent baby. There are currently 2 million families on the adoption waiting list, seeking to expand their families.
At no point throughout your argument did you imply any belief that the baby in the womb is not human, and I simply don’t believe that there is a circumstance in the modern world that would justify the forceable death of an innocent human.
- Absence of paternal figure
- Reasons for abortion
I'm appealing for a restriction on abortion, not a total ban. Those cases that I've mentioned, which are included in the common causes, are indeed the minority of them. And they're the ones that should be allowed the choice to cancel the pregnancy.
Pregnancy and childbirth may be life-altering events. One can also combine multiple of the common causes into one scenario, where a teenager is a victim of incestuous rape. In a pro-life case, the victim is forced to go through an undesired pregnancy with increased risk of miscarriage. It wasn't her choice to become pregnant, and she must go through the procedures and suffer the risks without any autonomy for her own body?
A fetus inside the womb is not a human in the same way as an actual baby simply because of the physical relationship between mother and child. To force the pro-life ideology is to revoke the right to bodily autonomy. And that, despite being in the minority, those are still women with their own lives and own bodies.
Reiterating, this is the minority of cases, sure. But it's those very cases that need an out rather than, say, the vast majority that don't have as valid of a justification. I concede that absence of a father doesn't justify abortion (and that the presence of one is only an ideal).
Lasting health issues after childbirth:
Round 3
I appreciate the fact that you agree that abortion is immoral in 99% of cases. Now we can focus on these specific extremes. Your argument lies on two main points; “a fetus in the womb is not a human” and an abortion ban would unlawfully hurt a woman’s autonomy.
I am not sure where the argument that a fetus is not an human argument stemmed from. At the point of conception a zygote is formed, that zygote has its own individual DNA and it will immediately begin to evolve. Throughout the organisms life it will continue to develop and change. This change does not stop until death and does not always follow a set pattern. So my question is this: if a human life does not start at conception, when does it start?
Lastly, you believe that bodily autonomy should be guaranteed to all, and in a perfect world I would agree with you. The issue with this is that if the fetus in the womb is considered a human there is not only one body involved. In situations where rights conflict, society often limits individual autonomy. This is especially true in cases where exercising autonomy would directly result in the termination of a life. We saw limits of individual autonomy for the greater good in instances like the selective service act, when men were required to register for the draft and go to war for the benefit of others.
If a fetus is indeed considered a human, I do not see any scenario where it is ethically viable to terminate the life of an innocent human being.
Forfeited
Round 4
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 5
Forfeited
Forfeited
