Is abortion ethical?

1.  Objective Morality is defined as a moral system true independent of a mind
   
2.  Values and principals are made by minds
   
3. Morality has Values, Principals, etc..
   

• Moral(s) is defined as: “ “of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL” 
  

“A parasitic relationship is one in which one organism, the parasite, lives off of another organism, the host, harming it and possibly causing death. The parasite lives on or in the body of the host.”

P1: The parasitic relationships are negative towards one’s well-being

P2: The relationship between the mother and fetus is parasitic

CON: Therefore, the fetus is causing considerable harm to the mother

“Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more.  Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.”

“Reaffirming that the human rights of women include a woman’s right to have control over and to decide freely and responsibly on matters related to her sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence, and that equal relationships between women and men in matters of sexual relations and reproduction, including full respect for the dignity, integrity and autonomy of the person, require mutual respect, consent and shared responsibility for sexual behaviour and its consequences,” 

• “Currently abortion is used as a tool to push forward direct ableism. If we look at historical reasoning behind the defense of legalization, we can see this peppering the issue. Within the United States, two big issues that helped push the Supreme Court to vote in favor of abortions in Roe V. Wade was the case of Finkbine and rubella outbreaks. Finkbine was a TV host who had a pregnancy, and the morning sickness was affecting her work performance, so her husband gave her an overseas drug that made it go away. ....This is even a factor in the present. Close to 100% of pregnant individuals in Iceland terminate pregnancies with down syndrome, and other countries are following suit. There are multiple impacts to this.”
  

• “The claim that everyone has well-being really ignores those who are aborted. Well-being can only be measured in those who are alive, so those who are aborted don't get to have their well-being evaluated. This is a direct reason to prefer my ethical framework.” II. Saying it's most applicable because it measures physical and mental well being ignores the entire point that we have to compare well-beings. If you want to make a decision where one person is going to have an ethical right to do something to another individual, you have to also determine a framework where you can weigh well-being, and a loss of the ability to measure well-being should be taken as the most egregious attack against well-being.”
  

• “I. Harm is an antagonizer of well-being, so it has to be something that can be weighed against others harm. I weigh the harm the pregnant individual would do to the fetus as more than vice versa, especially since the termination of the fetus results in no ability to ever measure or give it well-being, so it is negative an entire life's worth of well-being.
  

• “. I would say death outweighs all of these issues since none of these are harm, but just physical changes. While a lot of these are permanent, so is death, or at least permanently losing your chance at life. To conflate "shoe size", which is first on the list to the loss of all ability to ever measure your well-being, is simply irrelevant. Cross apply the laundry list of healthy benefits pregnancy gives as well as a counter.
  
• II. Firstly, the article my opponent cited is only psychological effects during pregnancy, meaning it completely fits within my point that an entire life being robbed is less than 9 months and birth. Extend that as practically dropped based on his evidence. To further answer his point and the preempt that it leads to lasting psychological damage, pregnant individuals who have an abortion are 81% more likely to experience mental health struggles. If we're worried about permanent well-being, then we need to worry about the damage caused by abortions.
  
• III. I never said birth pills or masturbation is or isn't illegal. Since this is an ethical question, I don't have to prove that it is plausible to place my ethical framework in legality, I just have to justify that it's the most ethical, so, sure, birth pills, masturbation, and all contraceptives are unethical.
  
• IV. I never specify animals and only talk about human beings. He has a laundry list of reasons why this is bad from a human based framework, so do a gut check. I'm not shifting, he's losing a one line attack in a total list of 9, 8 not including this one. I had assumed the conversation was about humans, and he isn't losing any equitable ground. My ethical framework is specifically about humans.”
  

• “ He says fetuses are harmful and therefore fair ground to be extinguished. This has two separate issues.
  
• a. Fetuses aren't harmful. Extend across my answers from the previous framework debate as well as the laundry list of benefits that pregnancy gives. 
  
• b. This isn't fair ground for them being extinguished if it does more harm then what the fetus is doing. Even under his own framework, this would lower the fetuses well-being more than it would lower the pregnant individuals, meaning we can't extinguish it there. I use extinguish because that is the word my opponent used.
  
• II. Once again, bacteria isn't human. When it comes to sperm and egg cells, sure, masturbation is unethical as well as surgeries that somehow inhibit this. He hasn't given a reason it isn't besides "it's absurd", but absurd doesn't mean wrong. Lastly, on cells, a skin cell doesn't have a chance at life, so this doesn't apply to the conversation.
  
• III. Extend the original and dropped point that life comes before well-being and you have to have a chance at life to interpret well-being. This point was inherently dropped and stands as an independent reason to support my framework over his.”
  

• “I. This one is really interesting because my opponent just cited the reason that he doesn't meet his own framework as a reason my framework is bad. He's put himself in a double bind. By saying that life is just another measurement of well being, either. Life is greatly and objectively better for well-being than death meaning the damage done to the fetuses well-being definitely outweighs that of the pregnant individuals, or
  
• b. Well-being is so subjective that we can't even measure life or death as the better of the two, meaning that chance at life prevails as the more objective framework.
  
• II. It's not an appeal to ignorance, it compares what the well-being of people affected by regulations and taxes created to lower poverty would be compared to those in actual poverty. Also, the very fact that it is partisan is a reason to say it's subjective. The question isn't "is poverty objectively bad", but "if we implement regulations to address poverty, would that negatively impact the riches well-being more than it would help the impoverished." Once again, we're getting lost in the example and not the premise, which is that there are so many different ways to weigh well-being that there is little to no objectivity while life provides an adequate amount of objectivity. Everyone should get a chance to be alive to then have their well-being established.
  
• III. On working out, all I'm doing is showing there is subjectivity and a lack of objectivity.”
  

• “Extend the previous double bind as an answer as to why saying life is a subset of well-being is important.
  
• II. Bodily autonomy has never been warranted in its relation to well-being or why it supersedes well-being. This is the ethical framework shift I discussed at the very beginning. He wants to defend well-being, fine, don't let him throw autonomy as a weighing factor when it hasn't yet. Also, as a true rebuttal rather than just calling out how he shifts, it doesn't matter on autonomy. More well-being is lost by killing a fetus than your  average pregnancy. (Average is key because those that cause permanent harm violate the counter proposal.) Very simply, the autonomy is only lost for 9 months, while a fetus would lose their chance at autonomy. The problem is that this once again doesn't weigh the fetus's existence and simply just throws the pregnant individuals to the front.”
  

• “I. Life isn't relevant to this point. This point was why the counter proposal fulfills the burden of well-being. To answer the point anyway, cross apply the double bind of saying life is a status of well-being.
  
• II. Pro says they have taken the well-being of the fetus into consideration because they called the fetus a parasite and claimed bodily autonomy. Cross apply where bodily autonomy was never warranted as to its relation with well-being, therefore doesn't really answer the point.
  
• III. He says I don't weigh permanent damage, and I do. That's the whole point of the counter proposal. Also that source doesn't have anything about mental issues, so don't let my opponent fake sources."
  

• “I. To say I never justify why life is important is to ignore the entire framework debate. Don't do that, and you'll know why chance at life is most important.
  
• II. When it comes to mental health, there's two independent issues.
  
• a. We can't track that prior to birth unless it's issues during pregnancy, which a psychiatrist could list as permanent harm, in which case, while I didn't bring it up directly, means I still somewhat solve it.
  
• b. Cross apply the negative mental health effects of abortion as a reason that it goes both ways, meaning mental health is at worst a wash.
  
• III. The purpose of this point is to prove that the counter proposal is better for both ethical frameworks, this point specifically talking about my own. It was a preempt to any arguments that I don't meet my own ethical framework.”
  

• “ Cross apply the whole point about why this fulfills my burden of proof. I do want to add that my opponent claims he said that abortion is unethical sometimes, but this was never made as a point. I haven't been able to find it, unless he's talking about a one off where he said it, in which case, I would argue he has to defend abortion in totality. He is saying the act of abortion is ethical. That's his burden of proof. If I find a situation where it isn't, then I win that I'm not convinced of Con's claim.”
  

• “It's great you switched language, but your first speech is etched into this website forever. While it's great to make an effort going forward, this debate still has your transphobic rhetoric on it, so a simple switch doesn't solve the issue that everyone who has to judge this round or reads this round to get insight into abortion from our perspectives still has to feel excluded if they themselves are transgender or non-binary.”
  

• “ All I said was that the counter-proposal is an alternative that doesn't use transphobic rhetoric. If the impacts of this argument still constitute enough to weigh a victory for Con, then it should happen, with or without the counter proposal.
  

• “I specifically showed how it harms our educational value of abortion by no talking about a relevant group of people. To simply say "it's off topic" is the equivalent of justifying transphobic slurs. If my opponent had used harmful slurs for women (since his first speech used the gendered pronouns) throughout the entire first speech, and I called that out as an independent reason to vote Con, the answer "that's off topic" doesn't justify his use of sexism in this example. Similarly, him saying it's off topic shouldn't justify his transphobic rhetoric.”
  

• “He never answered the impact or the fact that he used transphobic language, meaning that if you feel that him switching doesn't solve and the dropped impacts about the well-being of transgender and non-binary people as well as the education in this round as well as the debate space as a whole and these impacts outweigh in the round, this is an independent reason to vote Con. Also extend that education and accessibility is the only real impact of debates like this, so anything that harms that has to outweigh, meaning I do outweigh Pro.”
  

• “If you don't feel that it is fair to vote Con on an argument about rhetoric because it's too off topic, then I have an alternative. Give me the conduct point, and if you were already going to do that because of the forfeitures of my opponent, give me the grammar point instead of making it a tie. If you don't think my opponent's transphobia is an inherent reason to vote Con, don't let him get off scot free either. Give some amount of points to Con to show disapproval of transphobic language. His argument about solving it later doesn't change the fact that his rhetoric is etched into this site and debate forever now, so allow votes against it to show as well.” 
  

• “I gave two examples, the historical root of the United States and the current outlook of Iceland. He never refutes this and simply says "not enough". I'll give you some other numbers. Between 1998 and 2011, 67% of pregnant individuals who figured out their baby had down syndrome aborted it in the United States. In the UK, down syndrome is down 30% and the leading cause is abortions against disabled fetuses. Down syndrome as a whole is declining. Even if you don't buy that I prove it everywhere, extend the fact that it's happening in the US, UK, and Iceland.
  

• “His second answer is that since it's only an Icelandic thing, it's a non-issue. This is the equivalent of saying that since the Holocaust was only a Germany thing, it's a non-issue. He agreed it was an abortion in Iceland, but his justification is that it's ok because it's a small genocide. Extend when I first said that genocide is a direct reason to say chance at life is better than well being ethical framing, and the fact that my opponent tries to justify a genocide as small is proof enough.”
  

• “ Extend that the genocide leads to worse well-being for all disabled because as their population decreases, there is less incentive to make their lives better. Even if I don't win it's a global phenomenon, I at least win it's happening in the US, UK, and Iceland.”
  

• “ I would argue that the human rights statute is unethical because it doesn't give a shot at life for all. Cross apply my whole entire ethical framework why that's bad. He just says that the human rights statute has led to pragmatic good, but this is all about the ethical justification. Also, fetuses are human as they grow into a full adult human.”
  

• “B. His only argument is that I use old arguments. These arguments are cross applied. If they apply here, then they need to be answered here. Extend the original warrant that my opponent can't call a fetus a separate organism but also a part of the pregnant individual bodies.
  
• C. Same thing as before. Extend that the damage done to human rights is not worth the tradeoff.”
  

• “I'm not saying ignore all statutes of human rights, just this one. Rape, murder, slavery, genocide (like the one sponsored by Pro) are all bad. This part of the statute, however, is contradictory, patriarchal, and violates my ethical framework and therefore should be ignored. My opponent has yet to justify why this specific part of the statute is ethical, so it shouldn't be weighed.”