Divorce should be banned in most cases

Topic:

Divorce should be banned in most cases.

Definitions:

Divorce means an end of marriage with someone. This does not include cases where partner dies, or some other irrelevant cases which are not point of this debate.

Banned means legally not allowed to happen.

In most cases means in over 50% of cases.

My case for banning divorce in most cases will be built on these simple premises:

P1. If divorce in most cases harms future generations, then divorce in most cases should be banned.

P2. Divorce in most cases harms future generations.

C. Divorce in most cases should be banned. (C = Topic)

P1.

I will list observations which are true and which mean that P1 is true.

This premise is easily proven to be true, because future generations are what builds future society. Thus, any harm to future generations is a harm to future society.Future generations take priority over current generations, due to future generations being much higher in total number, more educated and thus able to reach greater truth and advancement.Thus, the position which protects future generations is a position which contains more truth and protects greater number of people.

If divorce in most cases harms future generations, divorce cannot be morally justified in most cases.My opponent might try to argue that divorce is harmful, but that banning divorce is more harmful than allowing divorce in most cases. We know that banning something acts as a type of discouraging, thus reducing the amount of something.

We know from the case of Philippines that banning divorce did significantly reduce divorce rates.

"According to the latest Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) census, just 1.9 percent of Filipinos had either received an annulment, or gotten separated or divorced."

Thus, if divorce in most cases harms future generations, and banning divorce reduces divorce rates and reduces harm to future generations, then divorce in most cases should be banned. There is nothing to disagree with in this premise, which brings us to the next premise.

P2.

I will list observations which are true and which mean that P2 is true.

P2 is about comparison of harm of divorce to that of lack of divorce, in similar cases and general statistics. This premise has plenty of proof supporting it. Divorce very often has negative effects on children, as we see by statistics that those with divorced parents usually suffer much more than those with parents who stayed married. Also, we see from historical examples and examples of countries, that increase in divorce rates is usually followed by increase in suicide rates, increase in depression and increase in harm to mental health.Research has documented that parental divorce/separation is associated with an increased risk for child and adolescent adjustment problems, including academic difficulties (e.g., lower grades and school dropout), disruptive behaviors (e.g., conduct and substance use problems), and depressed mood.Offspring of divorced/separated parents are also more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior, live in poverty, and experience their own family instability.Also, divorce being easily available increases amount of STDs, because it increases possibility for women being with multiple partners, which also increases depression and suicide rates of women, which further affects their children.Allowing divorce did not have many positive effects on women's mental health, but it increased their suicide rates and rates of mental illness, which is why today countries with high divorce rates usually have high suicide rates as well.Lack of divorce in most cases improves mental health of both women and children in most cases.

My opponent might bring up cases of some severe violence, but such do not form majority.

"Within a sample of divorcing parents, Hawkins, Willoughby, and Doherty (2012) found that the most endorsed reasons for divorce from a list of possible choices were growing apart (55%), not being able to talk together (53%), and how one’s spouse handled money (40%)."

We see that the first two choices, which form most cases, arent really good enough reasons to divorce a partner and to harm your children.

But another source says this:"A statewide survey in Oklahoma found that the most commonly checked reasons for divorce from a list of choices were lack of commitment (85%), too much conflict or arguing (61%), and/or infidelity or extramarital affairs".

We see that in this case too, none of these are valid reasons to harm your children, thus none of these reasons can justify divorce which harms your children.Divorces which are made due to poor, weak and unjustified reasons are the ones which cannot be justified nor have strong reasons to be, while reducing them reduces harm. These make up most of divorces.

We see from statistics that countries which have banned divorce and which now have less divorce also have much less suicides, low crime rate and even higher birth rates, such as case of Philippines. Divorce is illegal for most residents of the Philippines.

What we dont see is divorce being beneficial for children in most cases after being legally allowed.My opponent might claim that divorce benefited children in most cases, but we dont see this being true in statistics or examples of countries, neither in birth rates of countries which made divorce easier to get.Even in USA, groups which have higher divorce rates tend to have more poverty and more crime and suicides than other groups.

For example in case of African-Americans:

These are the following percentages of divorced women across the United States:

African-Americans: 33%

Hispanic women: 22%

White women: 19%

Asian women: 11%

We see that high divorce rates dont benefit groups, and thus dont benefit future generations.Even if person marries again after divorce, the divorce rate for second marriage is higher, and even higher than that for third marriage.

Divorce also increases number of single parent homes, which contributes greatly to crime.

There is no any proof that divorce benefits children in most cases, but there is plenty of proof that divorce causes harm to children.If divorce was beneficial in most cases, we would see groups with more divorce being better than other groups or at least equal. But what we see is greater harm in groups with higher divorce rates, and less harm in groups with lower divorce rates. This means that reducing divorce rates reduces harm. This is further confirmed by reasons for divorce, which are in most cases unjustified, as well as mentioned countries which reduced harm by banning divorce.

With premise 1 and premise 2 being proven true, the conclusion (topic) follows:

C. Divorce in most cases should be banned.