Is there a logical reason against abortion?
I posted a "Is there a logical reason against homosexuality" debate a while back and the respones were numerous. I now wonder if there's a logical reason aginst abortion.
Logically speaking it's not like all the babies will be killed so that doesn't count.
Religious reasons don't count, nor emotional ones.
Be civil.
This is one
Side Score: 30
|
 |
There is none
Side Score: 31
|
|
|
|
|
What is growing in the womb of the woman is alive. Even one-celled creatures are alive. What is growing in the woman is more than a one-celled creature. The nature of the life in the woman is human. It is the product of human DNA; therefore, its nature, its essence, is undeniably human. Because it is human in nature, if left to live, it will result in a fully developed human baby. Humans are humans not because they have feet, hands, walk vertically, and speak, etc. Not all people have feet, hands, can walk, and speak. They are humans because of their nature, their essence, not because of physical abilities or disabilities. A person born without arms and legs is still human. A person who cannot speak is still human. A person in a coma, helpless, unaware, unmoving, is still human by nature and it is wrong to murder such a person. What is growing in the womb does not have the nature of an animal, bird, or fish. It has human nature. If it is not human in nature, then what nature is it? If it is not human in nature, then does it have a different nature than human? If so, then from where did it get this different nature, since the only sources of its nature are human egg and human sperm? Objection: A cell in the body has human DNA and is alive and it's okay to kill it. So, it doesn't make any difference with a fetus. Though it is true that a cell in the human body has DNA and is alive, a cell (muscle cell, skin cell, etc.) has the nature of being only what it is -- not a human. In other words, a muscle cell is by nature a muscle cell. A skin cell is by nature a skin cell. But the fertilized egg of a human is, by nature, that very thing which becomes a fully developed human. Its nature is different than that of muscle or skin cells because these do not grow into humans. Therefore, a human cell and a human egg are not the same thing. A fertilized human egg has the nature of human development and it is alive. This is not so with a muscle or skin cell. To abort the life, which is human in nature, is to kill that which is human in nature. Therefore, abortion is killing a life which is human by nature. Side: This is one
If you directly quote someone please state your source. You have copied and pasted from: Side: This is one
1
point
1
point
Because it is human in nature, if left to live, it will result in a fully developed human baby. That is why it is being stopped before it becomes a human being. Humans are humans not because they have feet, hands, walk vertically, and speak, etc. Not all people have feet, hands, can walk, and speak. They are humans because of their nature, their essence, not because of physical abilities or disabilities. As you claimed our essence is our dna. Well an ape has dna very similar to a human, yet we can cage them. Why can't we prevent lives from being created if we can cage other lives? Semen, and ovaries have human dna in them, our blood has human dna in it, it is too our essence, why is it okay to casually lose them? Though it is true that a cell in the human body has DNA and is alive, a cell (muscle cell, skin cell, etc.) has the nature of being only what it is -- not a human. So I can surmise that you are for killing anything that's not human? Side: There is none
I can't really find a reason to justify abortion. For personal reasons I wish I could. A fetus has a potential for a life. If it were left in the womb it would live a long and full life upon birth. This requires no action - it just needs to be left where it is. Therefore the burden should be on those that agree with abortion to show why it is morally right to take the positive action of stopping its life. I've yet to be persuaded. I think perhaps people are just conditioned these days to see it as acceptable. Most people know women that have aborted at some point in their lives. They of course have no sympathy for the fetus having never had anything to do with him/her. The scenario I'd give is: imagine a child was born with a illness. They weren't able to sustain their own life and needed help from a machine at home. This machine was very difficult to use and it required a lot of effort every hour of every day from the mother. However, the doctos said that if the mother continued to make this effort, in 9 months time, there is a 99% chance that the child will fully recover from whatever the illness was and live a long a happy life. Would it be morally acceptable to deny the child treatment for the sake of the mother? Side: This is one
2
points
The scenario I'd give is: imagine a child was born with a illness. They weren't able to sustain their own life and needed help from a machine at home. This machine was very difficult to use and it required a lot of effort every hour of every day from the mother. However, the doctos said that if the mother continued to make this effort, in 9 months time, there is a 99% chance that the child will fully recover from whatever the illness was and live a long a happy life. Would it be morally acceptable to deny the child treatment for the sake of the mother? It would be to some, while pro-life people would see it as bad. The way I see it is this. If the mother can live and have the child come out healthy, she should do it. Not by law but by choice. Because ultimately the baby has no choice, she is the only one able to make a choice here. Side: There is none
Interesting. Thank you. Therefore I would think that you're against laws against abortion but see abortion as an immoral act? "Because ultimately the baby has no choice, she is the only one able to make a choice here" I guess what pro-lifers would argue (I'm still uncomfortable with saying that I am one) is that if it is immoral for the woman to abort then the law should prevent the woman from aborting in the interest of the fetus. Side: This is one
1
point
1
point
A fetus has a potential for a life. So does bacteria that infect humans in food we don't cook. yet we kill those why? Because it would be best for us not to have them. why it is morally right to take the positive action of stopping its life. Why is it morally right to kill and eat an animal? We need to for the benefit of the life that is already here and more dominant. Side: There is none
You didn't address my hypothetical scenario :/ how disappointing. "So does bacteria that infect humans in food we don't cook. yet we kill those why? Because it would be best for us not to have them." I of course meant potential for human life :\ "We need to for the benefit of the life that is already here and more dominant." I don't deny that there is a conflict of rights between the woman and the fetus. Nor do I do deny that the woman's rights are more important than the fetus's. If it were a question of the fetus or the woman dying then it would be beyond question that the woman should be chosen to survive. However, that is not the question. The conflict is the fetuses right to become a person vs. the right of the woman to avoid emotional suffering. Side: This is one
2
points
This is the only logical reason, and by saying this by no means am I saying I am against abortion. I feel it is a choice woman have the freedom to make, although I prefer they just be careful before hand, but anyways, the only reason is that if the abortion fails, serious damage can be done to the baby. HOWEVER, nowadays that rarely happens, however still it is possible. Side: This is one
1
point
1
point
Most abortions are performed entirely voluntarily by women that have the means to raise a child, but simply don't want to. While emergency abortions or abortions under trying circumstances such as rape are held out as reasons to continue to have abortions, they are infrequent and serve more to provide cover for voluntarily "life-style" abortions. This is wrong. For example: In 2004, only 7% of women in the US cited health risk as the reason for abortion. Most had social reasons, i.e. were not ready, did not want a baby, a baby would interfere with their career etc. Side: This is one
1
point
Women do not "want" abortions. They find themselves in a position in which abortion is the less bad between bad alternatives. This argument is important in explaining that abortion is not about a malicious desire to "kill babies" or even to express their right to choose; it is about allowing women to make the best choice. Side: There is none
2
points
1
point
Abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control when other forms are readily available. With contraception being so effective, unwanted pregnancies are typically a result of irresponsible sexual behavior. Such irresponsible behavior does not deserve an exit from an unwanted pregnancy through abortion. In Mexico City, a year after abortion was legalized, the frequency increased. Side: This is one
1
point
2
points
This is a ridiculous assertion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger. Side: There is none
1
point
Every life presents an inherent value to society. Every individual has the potential to contribute in one way or another, and taking the child's life before it has even had a chance to experience and contribute to the world undermines that potential. Even more, the underlying philosophical claim behind abortion is that not every life is equally valued and if a life is 'unwanted' or 'accidental' it is not worth enough to live. That kind of thinking goes directly against the life-affirming policies and philosophies of most countries, and peoples themselves. Side: This is one
1
point
Yes, our societies do strive to affirm life as much as possible, and to make the quality of life of our citizens as high as possible. Foetuses do not apply here because they: a) are not lives, are not human until fairly late b) if they are born as unwanted children, and the mother is effectively forced to give birth, the quality of life of both the child and the mother will be lowered, and that is what really goes against the principle of life affirmation. Side: There is none
1
point
It is unquestionable that the fetus, at whatever stage of development, will inevitably develop the ability to feel and think and be conscious of its own existence. The unborn child will have every ability, and every opportunity that you yourself have, if you give him or her the opportunity. The time-restrictions on termination had to be changed once, when it was discovered that feeling developed earlier than first thought, so they are hardly impeccable safe-guards behind which to hide: In the UK, the restriction was moved from 28 weeks to 24 weeks in 1990, due to scientific discoveries. Human life is continuum of growth that starts at conception, not at birth. The DNA that makes a person who they are is first mixed at conception upon the male sperm entering the female egg. This is when the genetic building blocks of a person are "conceived" and built upon. The person, therefore, begins at conception. Killing the fetus, thus, destroys a growing person and can be considered murder. Ronald Reagan was quoted in the New York Times on September 22, 1980 saying: "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." in the 1980 presidential debate. Side: This is one
1
point
Are we really talking about a 'life?' At what point does a life begin? Is terminating a foetus, which can neither feel nor think and is not conscious of its own 'existence,' really commensurable with the killing of a 'person?' There rightly are restrictions on the time, within which a termination can take place, before a foetus does develop these defining, human characteristics. If you affirm that human life is a quality independent of, and prior to thought and feeling, then you leave yourself the awkward task of explaining what truly 'human' life is. A foetus is not a life until it fulfils certain criteria. Before 24 weeks, a foetus does not feel pain, is not conscious of itself or its surroundings. Until a fetus can survive on its own, it cannot be called a life, any more than the acorn can be called a tree. Side: There is none
Here is a link to my own non religious, logical and Constitution argument against the legality of elective abortions. Side: This is one
1
point
Take for example, "the Unborn Victims of Violence Act" (Link; http://news.findlaw.com...)) The Unborn Victims of Violence Act already recognizes the "person hood" of prebirth children killed in over 60 listed acts of violence where the attacker can be charged with MURDER if the child is killed in a criminal act. This example had a broken link, but I do know of a case where the child that was killed was tried for being a part of the murder case, where the child, being less than 12 weeks, was not considered human enough to be murdered. Invalid point. I ask the voters reading this, to contemplate for yourselves how a child in the womb in the event it is killed in an act of violence can be considered a "person" and their killer can be charged with MURDER.... while the same child in the same womb killed by it's mother for what ever reason SHE decides is necessary for her needs is somehow something LESS than a person. This disparity alone should cast doubt about the Constitutionality of abortion on demand. See above. This is a strawman argument and appeal to emotion (see above). This does not, in any way, prove that abortion is unconstitutional. Abortion is done at the consent of the parent--NOT at the force of anyone else. Cohai addressed that one well enough. Overall I gathered from that debate that you believe it to be against the constitution and that is a valid reason against abortion. Yet Cohai proved the counter on every aspect you offered. Side: There is none
0
points
0
points
|
2
points
Women should have control over their own bodies; they have to carry the child during pregnancy and undergo childbirth. No one else carries the child for her; it will be her responsibility alone, and thus she should have the sole right to decide. These are important events in a woman’s life, and if she does not want to go through the full nine months and subsequent birth, then she should have the right to choose not to do so. There are few – if any – other cases where something with such profound consequences is forced upon a human being against her/his will. To appeal to the child’s right to life is just circular – whether a fetus has rights or not, or can really be called a ‘child’, is exactly what is at issue. Everyone agrees that children have rights and shouldn’t be killed; a fetus is not a life yet. Side: There is none
1
point
Even if a woman has a right to her body and to "choice", this right is overridden by the fetus's right to life. And, what could be more important than life? All other rights, including the mother's right to choice, surely stem from a prior right to life; if you have no right to any life, then how do you have a right to an autonomous one? The woman may ordinarily have a reasonable right to control her own body, but this does not confer on her the entirely separate (and insupportable) right to decide whether another human lives or dies. Side: This is one
1
point
2
points
Women, and in some cases girls, who have been raped should not have to suffer the additional torment of being pregnant with the product of that ordeal. To force a woman to produce a living, constant reminder of that act is unfair on both mother and child. In cases where the rape victim cannot afford or is not ready to have a child, abortion can do both the victim and the unborn baby a favor. There are cases where school students are impregnated through rape. Pregnancy itself is a constant reminder of the sexual assault they underwent and might cause emotional instability, which will affect their studies, and subsequently their future. Babies born to unready mothers are likely to be neglected or would not be able to enjoy what other children have, be it due to financial reasons or the unwillingness of the mothers to bring up the "unwanted children". Side: There is none
1
point
Denying someone life because of the circumstances of their conception is unfair. They had no say in these circumstances, and were, instead, simply given life. It does not matter what the conditions of this life were. It is still wrong to kill life, particularly an unborn baby. The child has a right to life just as much as that woman had the right to not be raped. The rapist violated her rights. Aborting the child would be violating the child's right to life. In 2004, only 1% of women cited rape as their reason for abortion, so this is more an exception than a reason for legalizing abortion. Side: This is one
2
points
There are cases in which it is necessary to terminate a pregnancy, lest the mother and/or the child die. In such cases of medical emergency and in the interest of saving life, surely it is permissible to abort the fetus. Also, due to advances in medical technology it is possible to determine during pregnancy whether the child will be disabled. In cases of severe disability, in which the child would have a very short, very painful and tragic life, it is surely the right course of action to allow the parents to choose a termination. This avoids both the suffering of the parents and of the child. Side: There is none
1
point
What right does anyone have to deprive another of life on the grounds that he deems that life as not worth living? This arrogant and sinister presumption is impossible to justify, given that many people with disabilities lead fulfilling lives. What disabilities would be regarded as the watershed between life and termination? All civilized countries roundly condemn the practice of eugenics. Side: This is one
2
points
1
point
Not only is banning abortion a problem in theory, offending against a woman's right to choose, it is also a practical problem. Enforcing an abortion ban would require a quite degrading and inhumane treatment of those women who wished to have their fetus terminated. Moreover, if pregnant women traveled abroad, they would be able to have an abortion in a country where it was legal. Either the state takes the draconian measure of restricting freedom of movement, or it must admit that its law is unworkable in practice and abolish it. The middle way of tacitly accepting foreign terminations would render hypocritical the much-vaunted belief in the sanctity of life. The demand for abortions will always exist; making abortion illegal, will simply drive it underground and into conditions where the health and safety of the woman might be put at risk. Example: Polish women, living in a country with extremely restrictive abortion laws often go abroad to the Netherlands, Germany and Austria for abortions. Women who are not lucky enough to live in environments such as the EU may be forced to go to foreign countries and undergo underground, unsafe abortions. Side: There is none
0
points
Practical considerations should not influence the legislation of an issue of principle. Many laws have difficulties pertaining to implementation, but these do not diminish the strength of the principle behind them: people will kill other people, regardless of your legislating against it, but it does not follow that you shouldn't legislate against it. Even though the Netherlands had more liberal drugs' laws than in England, this did not lead, and nor should it have led, to a similar liberalization here. As far as underground abortions are concerned, the problem is one of the implementation of the law. If the law were properly enforced, underground abortions would not be offered in the first place. Side: This is one
|
