Instigator / Con
26
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#4663
Is morality a valid argument against Abortion?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 5 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...
Best.Korea
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
35
1264
rating
357
debates
39.64%
won
Description
I am of the belief that abortion should not be outlawed because it can be deemed immoral. I strive to look at thing from alternative lenses and have assumed the position that abortion is a case of body autonomy and no matter how immoral it can be deemed everyone has the right to their own body. However if one believes abortion is murder can we truly place ones right to body autonomy over a supposed life?
Round 1
I am of the belief that morality has no grounds in a debate about abortion.
Abortion is of course the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, which is in my belief a crucial human right. I would argue that abortion is simply a matter of body autonomy and therefore a right every woman should be entitled to.
Exercising ones right to body autonomy can in many cases be considered immoral. For example donating blood is a simple procedure that is low in pain. By donating blood, we would most certainly be saving lives. One could argue that choosing not to donate blood knowing that it places someone at risk (especially when considering the amount of blood donated is lower than the demand for blood) is immoral and results in a loss of life. Surely the most moral decision one can make to minimise these casualties is to mandate that every citizen donates a pint of blood so that the demand for blood matches the amount of blood being donated. However that would over ride ones right to body autonomy and for many would seem out of the question. The right to body autonomy ensures that you have ownership to your body and thus to illegalise a procedure that grants you body autonomy forcibly removes your rights to your own body. No matter how immoral, you would want to keep the rights to your own body as you aren't simply a blood bag to be used when needed, but a human. A woman isn't simply an incubator; she too is a human, a sentient being. At what point does ones body not become their own? If we lose our right to our own body when another's life is reliant upon it we would have no ownership of our own body at all. And thus I would conclude that morality has no grounds in a discussion about body autonomy.
My position is that abortion is murder of a child.
1. Abortion means preventing the birth of a child.
2. Preventing birth of a child means preventing the child from living.
3. Preventing the child from living means murdering a child.
4. Abortion means murdering a child.
There is no way around this.
Allowing abortions means that some girls will be forced to have abortions.
1. Allowing abortions means parents will be able to force their pregnant underage daughters to have abortions through convincing and threats.
2. Banning abortions will prevent that
3. Banning abortions will, by preventing forced abortions, reduce the number of abortions.
I am of the belief that morality has no grounds in a debate about abortion.Abortion is of course the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, which is in my belief a crucial human right. I would argue that abortion is simply a matter of body autonomy and therefore a right every woman should be entitled to.
Sadly, women being entitled to destroy future generations is not beneficial for society, or for women. Allowing abortions means that women become more careless about sex, which leads to depression.
Exercising ones right to body autonomy can in many cases be considered immoral. For example donating blood is a simple procedure that is low in pain. By donating blood, we would most certainly be saving lives. One could argue that choosing not to donate blood knowing that it places someone at risk (especially when considering the amount of blood donated is lower than the demand for blood) is immoral and results in a loss of life.
Well, yes, donating blood helps others.
Surely the most moral decision one can make to minimise these casualties is to mandate that every citizen donates a pint of blood so that the demand for blood matches the amount of blood being donated.
I think an easier way would be to simply select citizens who will donate blood.
However that would over ride ones right to body autonomy and for many would seem out of the question.
Yes, for many. However, debates arent about the opinion of the many. In fact, the purpose of the debate is to become smarter than the many, instead of sinking to their level.
The right to body autonomy ensures that you have ownership to your body and thus to illegalise a procedure that grants you body autonomy forcibly removes your rights to your own body.
This begs the question: Does a child have right to body autonomy?
If yes, then abortions are wrong. Abortion is the violation of body autonomy of a child.
Fetus does not belong to a woman. Fetus's body belongs to a fetus.
Destroying 70+ years of person's autonomy to uphold woman's 9 months of autonomy is a math that simply doesnt work in your favor.
Person who is born can live and have autonomy for 70 years.
You cannot have an abortion without destroying 70 years of autonomy of a person.
However, aborting just 1 person also means destroying not just that person, but destroying that person's children, their children's children...
One woman choosing not to give birth destroys dozens if not thousands of people. One cannot argue that one woman's autonomy is more important than autonomy of dozen other persons.
No matter how immoral, you would want to keep the rights to your own body as you aren't simply a blood bag to be used when needed, but a human. A woman isn't simply an incubator; she too is a human, a sentient being.
Fetus too is a human, a sentient being. Destroying a fetus destroys a sentient being.
Even if you assume that fetus isnt sentient, it still follows that destroying a fetus destroys a sentient being.
Preventing the creation of a sentient human being means destroying a sentient human being.
Abortion prevents the creation of a sentient human being.
Abortion destroys a sentient human being.
At what point does ones body not become their own? If we lose our right to our own body when another's life is reliant upon it we would have no ownership of our own body at all. And thus I would conclude that morality has no grounds in a discussion about body autonomy
Your body autonomy destroys dozens of other lives and dozens of other people's bodies, therefore violating their autonomy.
Your 9 months of autonomy are simply not more important than dozens of people's 70 years of autonomy, nor should we destroy hundreds of years of other people's autonomy to uphold 9 months of yours.
Round 2
Forfeited
Forfeited
Hey this is interesting topic. Are you open to debate me on same topic?
The resolution as currently worded, may not give you the debate you desire.
An argument is valid, if the logic is internally consistent. A red piller can make a valid argument that it should be illegal because women suck. It would be unsound due to the premise that women suck is wrong, but it would still technically be valid.
What I believe you wish to argue is that the moral weight of "the right to life" does not exceed that of "the right to the pursuit of happiness" when it comes to abortion.
A related topic would of course be that abortion ought to not be considered murder.