Instigator / Con
0
1500
rating
5
debates
70.0%
won
Topic
#4522
Abortion should be supported by the government.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Pro
0
1420
rating
395
debates
43.8%
won
Description
Taking the perspective of the head of government, Pro and Con will debate about the value of abortion, and whether or not the government in question should support the act.
Abortion, in the context of this debate, will be defined as the termination of a fetus pre-birth.
The government in question, which Pro and Con will assume hypothetical control of, is not restricted to the US, Italy, or any particular country in existence, but it should conform to similar rules, standards, and guidelines. For example, governments still require structure, resources, and legislation. The debate should still be grounded in reason and logic.
Defining support, in the context of this debate, should be the sponsorship of the act. That can be in regards to funding it, legalizing it, or restricting it.
If you have any questions or concerns, leave a comment.
Round 1
I don’t think that, fundamentally, abortion is an act that helps the government or the women who take the action. I think there are less inhumane ways of dealing with the problem, such as more informed sexual education.
Abortion lowers the population, effects different races and cultures unequally , and as such, shouldn’t receive government support in any way whatsoever. It has racist effects, and erases any potential for human ingenuity, interaction, and improvement on the world.
Abortion should be supported by the government.
Why?
Let's look at the word "should" .
I'm going to make an example just based on the nature of cause and effect.
Why should I be wet standing out in the rain ?
When the rain hits my person, my person has a wet surface. The rain was the cause of wetness which was the effect of the cause of the rain hitting. The effect of the rain.
So something that "should" be is obligatory causality. That's all that it has to be at the very least.
Well if you know where I'm going with this, let's examine the nature of causality in government.
What would cause the effect of the government supporting abortion?
What causes anything of the government to support, have laws passed, legislate , administer , pass a bill and veto ?
In short, getting down to it, the people.
We the people, isn't that right?
So I'm taking the "pro " side of this topic. The opposing side will have to demonstrate according to the topic why shouldn't a government govern or support what it governs by those that run the government?
A government administers a law to support an action that has been voted for.
Why should the government support abortion?
It's because the process that was done to make it legal was done. That's the cause and effect in government.
The governing of laws that its own government doesn't support is a non sequitur.
To have no support of weight of something in flight by having it governed by a law that legalizes , gives permission, allows the possibility of a weight of an object suspended in air doesn't follow.
The natural government that allows or permits this is done with the laws of aerodynamics.
So an aircraft should be supported to do what it does because there is a government for it within an existence of laws.
Likewise with abortion.
Abortion should be supported of what it is at least because there is a government for it within an existence of a law regarding it.
Round 2
Preamble/Parens Patriae
At the risk of sounding ignorant, I did not completely get the rain or airplane analogy, but I think I get the point you are trying to make.
*People run the government + People want abortion = People that run the government want abortion.
The problem I find with that, first of all, is that people is a broad term when you're implying a majority or minority, and abortion is quite a divisive and controversial topic. Along with that, I would posit a similar equation with this:
*Government is beholden to the people + Fetuses are people = Government is beholden to fetuses.
If you're going to say that the government has a duty to the people, I'd agree and even go so far as to say that the government shares the same duty to the unborn people, the future generation. Parens patriae is Latin for "parent of the nation", and it means to act as a guardian in cases where a person needs a higher power to look after them. Fetuses have no one to speak for them or protect them, and so the government ought to.
P1: The government shouldn't support abortion because it is racist?
Black women are a minority, and yet, Black, non-Hispanic women have the highest rates of abortion. More than twice that of white women, and over 33% of any other ethnicity (Abortion rates by race and ethnicity | Guttmacher Institute) This is an unnatural disparity, and results in the culling of black children in overwhelming and horrifying amounts comparative to other races.
P2: The government shouldn't support abortion because it is useless and ineffective?
What is abortion? The killing or extermination of an unborn child. Plain and simple, it's getting rid of the "problem". But it isn't actually doing anything, not really. The baby isn't like a black hole, the Force, or a Harry Potter spell, it's not unexplainable or magic. The baby happened as a direct result of intercourse, i.e. S-E-X. Now, there is an argument to be made for non-consensual actions, but that is a minority of abortion cases and shouldn't have to be used to prop up an argument
Back to the point at hand, though, something caused that child, and that, among other factors, is the real problem. Engaging in unprotected sex, engaging in sex recklessly, and engaging in sex with no thoughts of preparation or the consequences is the real problem. And if we continuously rely on abortion to solve human error and carelessness, we're going to be spending massive amounts of resources endlessly to keep on killing babies. It's ineffective and inhumane. Instead, the government should look to alternatives, like better Sex Education or more accessible methods of contraception.
P3: The government shouldn't support abortion because it doesn't help the government?
Killing the next generation can solve some problems, I'll concede to that. It's a pain to raise a child. They cost money, and time, and love. Besides, they could be the next Hitler, Stalin, Bundy, or Dahmer. OR, they could be the next Newton, Einstein, Edison, or Tesla. The government needs a population to continue to thrive. It needs new people providing new ideas. Abortion is the direct opposite of that reality.
After all you've said I don't believe you disagree that the government should support anything that was actually voted in.
Just like if it was voted in that abortion is outlawed. You'd say the government should support no abortion because the process was done in the courts, in the administration for it to be no support.
See it's just cause and effect. The government really is just an agent of that. It is basically a catalyst entity. It's not one of ethics and morality. I'm taking away that's what you're trying to argue, right and wrong.
Is the standard of the law based on right or wrong?
The reality is , we wouldn't have inconsistency as observed down through history.
So to make the topic statement true just based on a logical equation, just like you should hear a sound within functioning earshot of a tree falling, the government should support whatever policies have been put in place .
Why? That's how the government operates. That's its functionality. Likewise with the functionality of our audible senses detecting the change in air of an object hitting a surface translated as sound .
That's just straightforwardly put without even complicating it.
Now if the topic was " Abortion is right", now we're getting to it .
What the government does and supports is a product of social effect.
So to what you communicated "The government shouldn't support abortion because it doesn't help the government? "
Help the government do what?
The government does or the people because that's who fundamentally the governments are, a governing body of people, the people do based on people.
They're not a god , they're not a moral agent, they're not our conscience, not our guru, not really our leaders. We the people let us remember. For the people by the people, they serve the people.
" The government needs a population to continue to thrive. It needs new people providing new ideas. Abortion is the direct opposite of that reality."
The government needs a population or people or else it doesn't exist. It goes back to what I've been saying. It's a product of social effect. So of course they need people outside and inside. People obviously make up the administration of government and supreme court.
About the "new ideas " part , I don't see how or what standard you use to come to deciding about government needing new ideas. New ideas for what? What for ?
I mean I can understand the inconsistency in government and the law. Why have laws in place to gradually destroy us and then have laws to instantly do so?
Destruction is destruction but clearly the operation of government is not operating by a totality of health which ultimately branch into two categories of good and bad..
There's another basis being used that still depends on an existing society.
Round 3
Rebuttal
After all you've said I don't believe you disagree that the government should support anything that was actually voted in.Just like if it was voted in that abortion is outlawed. You'd say the government should support no abortion because the process was done in the courts, in the administration for it to be no support.See it's just cause and effect. The government really is just an agent of that. It is basically a catalyst entity. It's not one of ethics and morality. I'm taking away that's what you're trying to argue, right and wrong.Is the standard of the law based on right or wrong?
I can see where you could find an argument for morality from my words, but there is a slight crinkle in your understanding. Starting off, I don't care if the government supports things that were voted in or not. Logically, I agree that they should enforce their laws, but the implication of your words is that the government should strongly encourage the status quo of any court decisions regardless of any new or outside reasoning and evidence. No government is perfect, and there have been modifications and amendments to existing legislation before, so I don't agree that any government should stubbornly stick their heads in the sand and refuse to change their minds.
Secondly, I sort of agree that the government isn't a machine of ethics and morality, to a certain extent, and I think the prior points I brought up are still valid. As far as the standard of law being based on right or wrong, that is a bit of a complex question. Simply put though, I don't think you can extricate laws from morality or ethics. There is a general consensus of right and wrong that the government typically has to abide by. For the topic of abortion, there are two differences in morality. That of belief in freedom, and that of belief that unjustified killing is wrong. I'm sure there could be more, but those are the two major things. I will add that I didn't form my argument on the basis of that, though. Or rather, there is reasoning beyond the surface-level morality.
So to make the topic statement true just based on a logical equation, just like you should hear a sound within functioning earshot of a tree falling, the government should support whatever policies have been put in place.
I agree that in principle a government should support the laws and policies put in place. The problem I have with this part of your argument is that a government is a changing creature. No government is static and capable of standing unchanged throughout time. Democracies, to be specific, are by definition susceptible to the whims of a changing population. Every four to eight years, the U.S. is at risk of having different policies and different solutions to problems. Supporting slavery in the past is a policy unthinkable today. Should the U.S. government have showed continued support of slavery because it was legal? Or should they have adapted to the problems at hand as they did in spite of existing policy?
" The government needs a population to continue to thrive. It needs new people providing new ideas. Abortion is the direct opposite of that reality."The government needs a population or people or else it doesn't exist. It goes back to what I've been saying. It's a product of social effect. So of course they need people outside and inside. People obviously make up the administration of government and supreme court.About the "new ideas " part , I don't see how or what standard you use to come to deciding about government needing new ideas. New ideas for what? What for ?
This is going to get confusing but stay with me. I don't know if you're too familiar with the theory of Malthusianism, but in essence, it goes like this. Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), a political economist, came up with the theory that as an uncapped population increases, the finite number of resources to keep the population alive decreases. Basic supply and demand at work. As people continue to breed, the number of resources available to them decreases. Eventually, the scale will become so tilted that the population will plummet as there aren't enough resources to keep everyone alive. This seems like a pretty sound theory. The problem with this theory is one that plagues a lot of our current and future troubles as well, and that is not accounting for human ingenuity.
According to Malthus, the world should've already experienced the side effects of his theory. The flaw though, again, is human ingenuity. His time was before industrialization, and all of the agriculture and scientific innovations that were made. The point I'm trying to bring up with his theory and its failure is that, if the greatest minds of the world were aborted, some of our biggest problems, like the agricultural problem of Malthusianism, would never have been solved. More presently in the modern age is the problem of climate control. Who's to say that the solver of climate control wasn't already aborted? Geniuses are already rare, and even more so for the caliber of genius needed to solve global issues. Culling the population isn't going to get us closer to solving global issues but saving them might.
"but the implication of your words is that the government should strongly encourage the status quo of any court decisions regardless of any new or outside reasoning and evidence. "
The question is, what do you do with evidence? Particularly when somebody or a group wishes to vote in a new law, they may use findings, evidence, data, petitions, join committees on and on and on. To run that process to legislate whatever it is from the people has brought attention to.
I think I said the last time, the function of the government is an entity that should support what has been ruled to be regulated. The government should support abortion because it has been ruled in. The government should support non abortion because it has been ruled in . Either way, it's whatever the cause is for the support . The support is the effect that should exist because of the cause.
" I will add that I didn't form my argument on the basis of that, though. Or rather, there is reasoning beyond the surface-level morality"
Whatever it's based on, the government isn't run by it. It's by the people and a good number of them that are not voting based on logical reasoning.
*The problem I have with this part of your argument is that a government is a changing creature. No government is static and capable of standing unchanged throughout time. "
The change you're referring to is the change in laws. I'm talking the process to pass them. It's run by people. Laws change just like feelings change. A clearcut correlation.
"Should the U.S. government have showed continued support of slavery because it was legal?"
Yes. Why? Support is only ,only the effect of the cause. The cause of what, the cause of those whom want it practiced in society. That's the basic mechanics of it .
The government should support slavery (the effect) because there would have been a cause to pass the policy on it. All a government is , is a body of members that run like a mechanical machine. You put coal or fuel into a combustion capacity. The pistons and gears support the power of the amount it's given by the source. It's just a reaction to everything else. The action of government is a reaction or product of a social climate or influence.
It works the same in the case of the government supporting slavery abolishment.
It's not an ethical entity, the government we're talking about. We have separation of church and state .
"Or should they have adapted to the problems at hand as they did in spite of existing policy?"
Having trouble answering because I don't know what it means "adapted to problems". The government is just what you put in and get out. The reaction to what are problems.
"The point I'm trying to bring up with his theory and its failure is that, if the greatest minds of the world were aborted, some of our biggest problems, like the agricultural problem of Malthusianism, would never have been solved"
I can appreciate the point. But you have to have something stronger than this. I'll tell you why. One thing there's strength in numbers. Either there wasn't enough in numbers to vote this into office based on this point or the similar to what you brought up or the counter just superceded to another level.
Hence making my point that the government is not an independent agent as judge. It's a reactionary figure upon the catalyst the public. The government does not operate by what you used as a basis to support anything going into law.
What the government should support is one thing. What is right is another. I think that's where you're going about what is right. That's a different topic than what the government supports , does not support.
It's the year 1860, the government supports slavery. Is it right objectively?
Besides the matter. To the slave master, I guess it's subjectively right to Massa.
In the early 1900's the government supported non liquor use. Was that right?
Besides the matter again.
We're just talking about what should be. Now in the case of government, trying to add morals into the equation, it's inappropriate.
As far as the government goes and what should they do , well let's look at the function of a government.
Like we look at the function of a car jack. Should the car jack support the weight of a vehicle ?
Yes . Simple fact that the components of the jack were setup that way.
See this law and government is setup on account of on an election, on a vote, a rally, democracy . The only thing a government should do or support is what it was setup to do. Don't look at the government as an entity that is setup to do what's right . That's why we have all this political controversy. There would be none with these things done right or soundly or health conscious and beneficial .
Round 4
Recap of Pro's Argument
Excerpt 1:The government should support slavery (the effect) because there would have been a cause to pass the policy on it. All a government is, is a body of members that run like a mechanical machine. You put coal or fuel into a combustion capacity. The pistons and gears support the power of the amount it's given by the source. It's just a reaction to everything else. The action of government is a reaction or product of a social climate or influence.Excerpt 2:The government is just what you put in and get out.Excerpt 3: In the early 1900's the government supported non liquor use. Was that right?
In essence, Pro is stating that the government's function is to support the decisions of its citizens. The government (democracies), in this scenario, operates as an apparatus for the decision-making of the majority of its citizens. Because that is how government functions, government, by definition, has to support the decision of the citizens in legalizing abortions in mass.
The problem, I find, with Pro's argument is that the way government works in his argument isn't representative of the operations of real-world governments. People, in mass, want universal basic income, freedom from taxation, and free health care. According to Pro, because the people want it, the government has to put that into action. Except, they haven't. They haven't because they can't. To continue to exist, they have to operate in a logical manner. The government can't just acquiesce to whatever their citizen's demand. If it did, it wouldn't last for long. In the case of UBI and no taxation, the economy would quickly be crippled. In the case of abortion, the population is on the decline.
Now, whether abortion is right or wrong doesn't matter. According to Pro, "in the case of government, trying to add morals into the equation, it's inappropriate." What matters then is facts. The fact is that for any country to prosper, it needs a strong military to ward off any potential enemy countries and a strong work force to keep the economy pumping. Even today, with all the technology at our disposal, we still need large populations to fill in the necessary positions. Supporting abortion, in that case, is damaging to the country. As seen by the lack of action for no taxation, universal basic income, and free health care, the government's first priority is not the citizens, but the government itself. Likewise, in a paradoxical manner, the stability of the government itself, whether catering to the citizens or not, helps the citizens. So, for the citizens, their best interest is for the government to continue to exist. For the government, it's best interest is that the citizens, born and unborn, also continue to exist.
For your question of whether the prohibition was right or not, it's going to take a second to get to it. I think the question you're asking has wider connotations than simple morality, as it strikes into the very nature of government. So, to start, when I asked about the government abolishing slavery as an adaptive measure, you said that you were, "having trouble answering because I [you] don't know what it means "adapted to problems". That was an understandable issue, as I didn't delve too deeply into the relationship between government and slavery. The problem I mention, though, is that slavery wasn't an economically viable plan (Actually, Slavery Was Never Economically Efficient - Foundation for Economic Education (fee.org)). The truth is that our government wouldn't have lasted nearly as long as it has if we still relied on slave labor. So, when I made note of the government abolishing slavery even though the prior policy was in support of slavery, I personally think that it was a mixture of both government and citizen interest that overturned the original order of things. That said, when the government decided to abolish alcohol, I think it was a weird reversal of interests by a young government not immune to mistakes. By that, I mean that it is objectively and generally better for citizens to be sober. In fact, the movement that started the prohibition was trying to do just that, "perfect" the citizens. But, as a consequence, the government sacrificed its own economic benefits by prohibiting alcohol. So no, I wouldn't say the prohibition was right, either from a moral or a logical standpoint.
That said, your question does bring up the tyrannical and oppressive nature of government. To clarify, whenever the government acts, in any fashion, it is always with force on the citizens to make them comply. You can see this in law, law enforcement, the economy, and the military. I don't think the government can ever act in a truly subservient manner to citizens, such as you describe, putting the citizens before the government itself, because of the vast power imbalance. Even if the citizens are outraged by a decision, what can they do to combat the state power? Next to nothing. Hence, the government can practically act as they will in the best manner for themselves. I will add though, that in most decisions, there is a balance to be seen that benefits both government and citizens. But rarely is there, if ever, a decision where the government loses at the benefit of the citizen.
Conclusion
So, to conclude my argument, the government does, in essence, operate according to its will, though empowered by its citizens. In the case of my argument, as seen in real world, the government operates to preserve itself. This doesn't mean it hurts the citizens, but simply by existing it protects them. So, it's in the citizens best interest that, though the government has its own agenda, the government continues to exist. Abortion is a practice that ineffectually weakens a government's strength, and so, as a separate entity, and even as the Pro contends, a connected entity, the government shouldn't support abortion as a practice.
"People, in mass, want universal basic income, freedom from taxation, and free health care. According to Pro, because the people want it, the government has to put that into action. Except, they haven't. They haven't because they can't. "
Let me clear up the problem you're having. Everything we're talking about regarding society is caused by who? The society isn't so?
See when you can understand what a product of a social effect is, you understand who the producer is.
A government is a body of members, who are the members? People.
Now from what I'm quoting here from you , you're using the term people really in specification. There are people that don't want gun regulation. So therefore by the point you tried to make, because there are people that don't want it, the government which are a people too should represent.
You don't have exactly the correct representation of government because where you particularly missed it is "people " doesn't say alllll people.
There are people that do want some things. When there is an overpowered force counted at what's called an election, a democracy, the majority over the minority, the government is still responding to what the people want . The government, the people want to serve the people.
Somebody decided to invent currency and taxation to solve a problem. Believe it or not people want to solve problems. So someone can make a point about a niche not wanting something while others do.
"They haven't because they can't."
Why can't they ? Can they not do what they want?
Would it be more problematic if a lot of changes were to take place in the economy by government rule? Would anybody want that ?
See everything socially, the government included is not only political but a social system.
It was caused by people. Every part of it directly or indirectly is behind what people want. Don't ever fall for the deception that this isn't man made and it was made by man because it all started with a goal of a desire.
Yes the problem with your point, you just isolated a group. Like saying just because there are those that want to commit crime and the government knows they can make more legality to not stop people from doing what would be criminal acts, then so be it .
There are evidently no anarchists in government or at the election polls.
The government is a social product but you're kind of getting it twisted up about who is dominating.
"The government can't just acquiesce to whatever their citizen's demand. If it did, it wouldn't last for long. "
You're homogenizing people. This is why we have a voting system.
"we still need large populations to fill in the necessary positions. "
This is going left of the topic but I couldn't resist. By you saying"we need large populations, it's getting into not only all babies being allowed to be born and not allowed to be rejected, but allowing babies to be made and not allowing babies not to be made (homosexuality). These two do intertwine particularly getting into the population thing.
Now it's late to go back and forth on this but if you're for the government not supporting abortion but for things to encourage homosexual affairs, namely same sex affairs, I would begin to open up observation on consistency.
"Supporting abortion, in that case, is damaging to the country. "
If you're saying because of this the government should not support abortion, then have enough people to vote on a "pro -life" amendment, because all the government is , is a reflection of what is voted in . Apparently abortion is legal, society is still here, the government is still here. I think the overpowering superceding vote had stronger views, convinced more folks to vote for abortion, boo-yaaaa!
"government's first priority is not the citizens, but the government itself. "
See here, you're still looking at things on too small a scale. There would be no point of a government without citizens. Citizens came together to make a government, a body of members. When you see the term government, think people, people.
"people's first priority is not the people but the people itself."
No matter which way you want to look at it, it's just people reacting socially,with one another. When people interact, it's political, it's politics.
Take this down to the bare details. People came together for a reason. Whether they wanted to or had to in order to still get what they want. That's what it inevitably comes down to.
People came together from a land or nation of people that share the same value or vote of things that benefit human persons. There's an interaction between the people of government to society and from society to the people of government.
No we have differences in values and I've touched on this. Due to the character restraints I have to move on and touch on what I can.
Ok everything else you had to sày after the points above was just describing the social network in government.
It supports what is voted in and passed into law ultimately. That's all you can do with it. You can't argue that the government supports things on the basis of what is right or wrong. Not even what's best because what seems best at the time is not best. This is why there is a constant change in law.
"Abortion is a practice that ineffectually weakens a government's strength"
I would of liked to see you explain this connecting the dots. Abortion weakens the strength of the people in government how? Is it physically, mentally, spiritually, metaphysically, etc?
Statements like these are too obscure and can be easily thrown out .
For example, I don't know how long abortion has been legalized but the government has been around for centuries and hasn't gone any where. So this is a desperate need for clarity which I am not going to get this time.
But if something is perpetuated decade after decade, what is weakened about it as if it'll be no more one day?
"and so, as a separate entity, and even as the Pro contends, a connected entity, the government shouldn't support abortion as a practice."
I still haven't gotten the basis you're using for the term should.
You didn't respond to my function analogy with the car jack. That was akin to the functioning role in government. I think you communicated the functioning role of government is not the correct representation and that first and foremost the government preserves itself.
Well being that it preserves itself while abortion is legal, what is this talk about weakening the strength of the government?
A lot of these points are just not making tight connections.
When we established that the system of government involving people don't make things law, don't pass laws, don't legislate things based on morals, what else is there?
Maybe what's good for society. Well check this out. Everybody we can imagine has different ideas for society. So again it comes back down to a vote which I've been saying. Whatever that vote is , is what the government SHOULD support because that's the role of a government. Like the role of a car jack , a tire , the role is to support what its role is for.
Now you can say no, the government doesn't just submit to the highest vote. Ok, why?
The "government officials" (people in other words) differ based on ..... perhaps rules, values setup by......other people that ......had visions, wishes/desires.
Either way you go, you will find at the end or BEGINNING of that chain reaction, it is a person that wants something and makes a social chain reaction.
It continues on from there just based on subjective ideas all over again.
So in some way the government still is doing based on others. That's the role so it should be what the role is and those in government share the same view which is equivalent of sharing the same vote.
So you can say the citizens don't get what they want outright but citizens make up the government. So if you're going to say it's the government first, you're still saying citizens first. We the people for the people by the people.
Synonymous language and it proves the point. That's why I like using it.
We the people for the people by the people.
When you understand the systemic threads of the social fabric from start to finish with the government stitched into it, everything is cause and effect from a political or social situation that affects another from a problem to a solution.
I couldn't get a handle on what you're basing "should" on but one element I take is you continue to emphasize that with abortions, you eliminate the possible persons that could exist in future governments as well as other minds that could be imperative to society.
Of course this is your view , your view can count as a vote. Being that abortion is legal, your vote wasn't high enough. So because of that the government should support abortion, because they didn't get a vote like yours high enough to not support abortion.
You were "nay". The "nays" didn't get the vote.
The other votes had the view most likely that for example, governments still exist while abortions are legal, the society, the planet population is still here so those votes were higher on that basis. The logical causality is just like the setup of a car jack, democracy is setup the majority should win the support because well... that's the role of democracy.
Voting poll closed.
I was thinking if the military, which is ironic when you consider the common beliefs in eugenics.
Are you referencing the period of eugenics where the government tried to use IQ tests to sterilize pregnant women who they thought would give birth to morons?
They used to mandate some abortions.