That abortion is morally permissible

In this debate I take the principle of natural law - that is, that people should be allowed to do whatever they want unless there is a good reason not to allow this. This truth is self-evident because, insofar as people can do things, there is no further natural moral restriction on doing them. There is no inherent universal bad consequence if I perform an abortion on somebody or have an abortion myself, or allow somebody to go through an abortion. There are only consequences other people would impose. It follows that if other people do not have a justifiable reason to not morally permit abortion, abortion must be considered morally permissible.

We define abortion as an act of self-defense by a woman against an unwanted parasite stealing her energy so that it might hope to spawn into a human baby. Most jurisdictions would hold that killing in self-defense is morally and judicially permissible. An analogy would be if you had a baby which somehow got its hands on a gun, and seemed to be about to pull the trigger. Is it morally unjustified to kill your own baby, if that means potentially preserving your own life? In fact we find there are good reasons to believe our own lives are more valuable in these kinds of scenarios, since the unborn may never be born and thus never really contribute to society. We'd prefer not putting into jeopardy the health of people who  are likely to immediately be able to contribute, such as by having more children in the short term. The same moral justification can also be extended to a host of other cases, such as euthanasia, as a medical operation to prevent undue suffering. Where women are in distress to the point they would be willing to sacrifice something that clearly means a lot to them, doctors have a moral duty to do something about that. As evidence to this point, the majority of women who undergo abortions intend to have children in future.

I define a person - or any living thing - as capable of functioning independent of other living things, provided the other basic conditions of life are met. If by some magic, I was transported to a world that magically provided me with oxygen and food etc but no other living things, I would be capable of surviving on my own. An unborn creature literally could not. Animals go through a birthing process specifically to create this independent link. On the other hand if we say such independence is not required for life, we must also say various other things are alive, such as fire. In general, this would be considered absurd. Therefore the unborn cannot be considered alive independent of the life of their mother. To extend the point, if the mother dies, the unborn child will go into an automatic shock and die immediately as well. There are numerous other physiological changes that happen at birth - the child begins to breathe for the first time, for example - but above all it is this independence that allows something to have life on its own. A woman harming her own body must be morally permissible - otherwise, fighting cancer must also be considered a moral problem, and cancer is certain to prolong death.

Abortions tend to attract the most extreme cases. While most anti-abortion campaigners want to talk about self-entitled millennials getting abortions, I think about rape victims. If abortion is not allowed morally, rape can be morally justified as providing the moral outcome of a child. That's a problem, because allowing rape (along with disallowing abortion) is a restriction on people's free choice and bodily autonomy. This violates the natural law principle established in argument one, along with commonly accepted principles of human rights. Likewise, incest and other moral wrongs suddenly become justifiable, because you're practically assuring such actions a specific reward. Likewise, what if an abortion is required to save the life of the mother? Various medical conditions have led to deaths in countries where abortion is outlawed, on the grounds doctors could not perform operations required to save the mother's life. Considering abortion a moral problem is therefore to consider the lives of the mothers morally problematic also.

The resolution is affirmed.

4. The alternative poses moral challenges concept:I agree, Since you care about the rape victim please I want you to cite their perspective in this debate.
link :abortion can save life(https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&source=android-browser&q=child+aborted+to+save+mother)

Con's Claim and warrant.
1.Fetus are beautiful.

In general, it is clear my opponent misunderstood my material. The following clarifications should show why this is the case.

My opponent chose to entirely concede my first argument. This means they accept the burden of proof in the debate. Con needs to show why it is not morally permissible. Literally nothing in my opponent's substantive argumentation does that - I'll explain why in a moment.

Secondly, I argued that it's OK to kill others. My opponent became confused by my double negative and assumed I'd said it's not OK to kill others. Hopefully this clears up the confusion. I explained in more depth why murder is morally acceptable in my previous round - even if the burden were not entirely on my opponent in this debate, they still need to deal with the arguments I raise. Con cites some scientist who has made a claim that fetuses can feel pain. First, killing generally involves some form of pain on human victims. If killing is OK for humans, and that killing usually involves pain, I believe it stands to reason that it is morally alright to cause pain to a fetus. Second, plenty of other animals have the same experience. Cows can feel pain and many of us eat them for dinner frequently. Third, con fails to cite what impact the scientist's claim has on my material. Fourth, even if pain was morally disqualifying, every fetus develops at a different rate. It makes it impossible to say whether any given abortion met that standard - how conscious does the baby need to be of the pain? Fifth, along the same lines, morality is not black-and-white to be decided by one variable. Any potential pain that is felt must be weighed against the benefits of killing, which in the case of abortion are often significant. Sixth, and this is the most damning bit: my opponent's link actually states he's wrong. According to his own source, if you read it, it explicitly states that a fetus cannot feel pain at 20 weeks, and that the case on this is "closed."

Thirdly, my opponent concedes my point but doesn't understand the impact. If we agree that fetuses should not be considered human then there's no way we can argue they're "supposed to be born." Rather, since the fetus and human are entirely biologically distinct and the fetus is not alive, it cannot be killed. The only things that can be killed are living things, so if we assume the fetus is not alive then it's within the rights of women to kill any fetus in their body. I liken it to a parasite or any other unwanted growth on a woman's body that can be safely, surgically removed by a trained professional.

Fourth, my opponent agrees, then criticizes me for not citing a perspective, and then goes on to do just that for me. He doesn't explain why that's important. My opponent's job in this debate is to defeat my arguments against them, and put forward their own compelling case in its place.

So here's where we stand:

> My opponent wants to set out to prove his case absolutely from the negative perspective. He takes that onus on completely by himself.

> My opponent has no problem with killing others

> My opponent agrees a fetus shouldn't be considered a living human

> My opponent agrees the lack of abortion is often a moral problem

> And yet, my opponent is absolutely convinced he can prove to you beyond your reasonable doubts, that abortion is not morally permissible

Let's check in with how my opponent is going with that after round one...

Con said he'd bring us a claim and a warrant, but then doesn't structure his argument like that at all. No matter...

First he said that fetuses are beautiful. I'd like to cite as counter-evidence the rather disturbing image of fetuses con himself posted at the top of his argument. Even if you think that sort of thing is beautiful, however, that doesn't mean you should have a moral problem with killing it. Con correctly notes that gemstones can't become human. This may be true, but gemstones are worth millions of dollars for a reason - they're pretty. Whereas women actually pay money to get rid of their fetuses at abortion clinics. If money is an expression of the value of something, then clearly we can characterize gemstones as a luxury and fetuses as a burden. I agree with my opponent that fetuses become more valuable after they're born. This whole point is like saying we should never dig a hole in case we ease pressure on some rock which might possibly one day become a diamond. I'd prefer people do what's best in their lives at the time.

Second con notes that abortion is super useful. I agree. To extend the point, if we could extract stem cells from fetuses, we'd be able to cure a lot of diseases on humans, too, such as cancer. Human fetus stem cells are much better than the pig stem cells we currently mostly use.

Finally my opponent notes he wasn't aborted. Well ... congratulations. I hope life is everything you dreamed it would be when you were a fetus. Unfortunately that doesn't mean it's not morally ok. If you're saying you'd rather not "be dead" right now, how do you know that? What if all aborted fetuses went to heaven or got reincarnated as dragons and had awesome lives afterwards?

The resolution is affirmed.

I don't criticize you,  your too worthy to be criticized. 

 I am just interested on the heart of the mother because totally I don't know why do they stop themselves from being a mother, and I know there is a reason I thought you can explain it to me. I'm really sorry.

There perspective is important because they are involved in the procedure of abortion. 

(Next topic)

Request Accepted: It is not morally permissible. 

My only philosophy is that they treat fetus as if its not their kind. Fetus is part of human development and some humans don't treasure it but instead they treat it like a ussual toy, if you want it you'll take it, if not ,trash it or don't keep it.   Humans have to be a fetus before humans can be a human, so why won't they show how they cherish it?

So your lucky that your mother did not abort you, she loves you and she taught about your future right when your just a fetus. 

Since fetus are going to be a human, there is a reason to love it like a human being. 

There will be some reasons of human where abortion will not be moral like aborting a fetus to make money, isn't it more reasonable to let fetus be mature so it can be human because human are valuable than money?

Some probably because they were raped, isn't the human more valuable than the burden you felt in the past because human has soul to comfort you? and i can say abortion is not a form of justice. 

(Next topic)

Your right, fetus can be removed safely and its like unwanted parasite if the mother don't like it but its not enough reason to take away the future of the baby (it has a future) unless the mother have acceptable reason. 

The fetus already existed (alive and developing), why would they plan to make it non-existent(not developing)?  

(Next topic)

The rock into diamond, it makes a point , ofcourse human will treasure rocks if they know it will turn into diamond because it will make them rich.

Tough it is hard to make coal to become diamond , it is easy to make a human if you let the fetus grow, like diamond, it can make you rich, rich in love and care , fetus are more precious than diamond.  Dude,  we came from it. 

(Next topic)

So you said fetus might get into heaven, but it does not matter where they go but the question is what are you going to do to the fetus?is your plan for the fetus reasonable enough or there is more better plan for it?

Even if you'll know what's going to happen to it the only thing you can handle is what did you do to it when you have opportunity to handle it?

If I am aborted it is the reason why I cannot do something to love my parents back, i cannot say how you are valuable and beautiful, why I didn't see the light, why I did not feel  pain and the feeling how loving loveless people is. 

(Next topic)

Fetus are beautiful, all of what i see is beautiful, there is just something more beautiful and beauty is without condition for me. If your skin is black or white, your beautiful.  If you are dull or smart, you are still valuable. If you can't walk and you have wrinkles, your still the same beautiful , valuable, worthy and loveable man that I can talk to. 

Even if you lose sight , can't walk,  write, talk and move you are still worthy,  valuable , and loveable because I can able to love you as friend, can still call you worthy and I can still call you valuable coz I can. 

(Next topic) 

If you saw that picture,  that was an aborted fetus, if you see an unaborted fetus then you can percisely see what I see especially when you notice there human structure that are not yet mature but if you let it grow they will become more beautiful because they existed for something more. 

Just look what the farmers do to the wheat seeds, they took so much care to the seeds because they know that seed are meant for something more. 

(Next topic)

You see, there is a better procedure than abortion if the mother is endanger because of fetus, we just need to find out what that is and discover because totally, abortion is not satisfying, like how you are disturbed at the abortion photo, you see how abortion is a bloodshed, you can see blood coming from the fetus if you abort it, and now that I have that philosophy , I can study how to save both mother and the child coz there's a way out of immorality from dissapointing choices. 

It's okay to kill but it's more better to not kill. it feels more acceptable to see someone not killing others than to see someone killing others no matter what reason it is (e. g war). There is another solution for peace and not just war, we got a choice, it is either to die without killing anyone at war or to be dead at old age while knowing that you put death to someone at war. 

(Next topic)

You are concious then you feel pain,  if the fetus is a little concious it still feels pain.

It is okay to cause pain to that someone who can be able to feel pain but it is better to give no pain.

If someone hurt you and you felt pain that's how the fetus will feel,  if someone punch me hard in my cheeck,  I will feel like I am hated and I will feel the aching pain in my cheeck because if that someone really care about me,  that someone would not want me to feel pain. 

It does not matter on how concious the fetus is, it is already concious. 

(Next topic)

Dude, the first thing I want to be when I realized I am hurting cows, I want to be a vegeterian. 

(Next topic)

Yeah gemstones are worth of a million dollars because it is beautiful, but look at you, your beautiful and your presence does not worth any millions but your existence is a extraordinary beautiful gift,   You mean much more to me than any beautiful gemstones, we're friends. 

You are like that fetus, You re beautiful , you are worthy than gemstone, even though you are not worth any dollar, You are better than that gemstones, you got more ability than gemstones, I can befriend with you and you can befriend with me too. You are the priceless, worthy and valuable  free person, you are that beautiful  fetus that gotten mature. 

You are the one that deserves to not be aborted, your existence is the reason why it is not moral to abort you.  You fetus existed to live and they have let you,you re that reason and you deserved not being aborted.

(Next topic)

You told me you prefer people to do what's the best for their lives,nice, I'll tell you what's mine.

(Next topic)

fetus will never be a burden in my eyes, you see the people in poverty, it's not their children who bring them down , even if they lack of money some wants to have more children, do you know what's on their hearts when they say that? This is what I saw, 

It is because when life is hard,  their children is like some sort of stress reliever and their light, they love each other because totally human has ability to love others back and I remind you that human first became a fetus.

I did not apply to be the one who brings you down,

 I don't want to defeat you or see that your defeated, I want you to rise and keep walking like you don't have plan to fall.

You deserve a strength after all the trials, negative pasts and sort of stuff that makes sadness reasonable for you.

(Ad)

And bro, let's help the helpless on freerice.com. 

I can't tell you the psyche of every woman who makes the difficult decision to go through an abortion. That's because I'd hate to generalize. There are a myriad of different reasons why abortions happen - all we have are a few aggregate statistics. For example, we know that most (not all, but a majority) women who undergo an abortion plan to have children later in life. Perhaps that speaks to some underlying motivation on their part, or perhaps that is simply because they tend to be younger. As per usual, correlation is not causation.

However, for what little it's worth, I'm happy to provide a single example of the heart of a mother who goes through such a procedure, that being my own mother. As a young woman, she went through an abortion to terminate a pregnancy. This meant she was able to prepare to have children at a stage in her life when she was ready for it. Having an abortion then, allowed her to have myself later on - something she is sure would not otherwise have been an option. She wanted to raise children right, when she was settled, comfortable and financially stable enough to do so. So it's rather ironic, but I literally owe my life to an abortion.

As per usual my opponent drops a plethora of points, which I extend. However, I'd mostly like to concentrate my material on a few points of clash.

First con claimed a fetus is beautiful. I rebutted that. He holds on to this argument, by his own admission, because he "can." Now he's saying it's valuable because it might one day be a human. I have a few problems with that.

First, I argued in round one that it's ok to kill humans. If it's ok to kill a human, then surely it must be ok to kill a fetus. Case closed. Pro said it's better to not kill because he doesn't like to see killing. Obviously that's a personal aversion, not a universal one. For one, many women nonetheless choose to abort. Ditto with the fact most people know they're hurting cows and still choose not to be vegetarian. Even if these facts made us mildly uncomfortable, they are clearly outweighed by other moral imperatives, such as hunger and our need to eat protein.

Second, even if that were not ok, con practically concedes that a fetus is less valuable than a human throughout both of their rounds. Con has not justified why potentially becoming a human (given the right conditions of nature and nurture) means that we should protect this illusion that a fetus is alive (which it is not anyway).

And third, in the previous round I provided six amazing reasons why killing fetuses is great. My opponent has quietly ignored all six of these reasons.

Con loosely appeals to the idea that since humans may have some sort of soul, then maybe a fetus could be developing one too. I'd like con to therefore prove the existence of souls.

Therefore it is clear that even if a fetus does have value, it is not value worth protecting. Frankly I don't care - if women need to make these difficult trade-offs, the least we can do is trust them. Likewise, wheat seeds have rotted in the past. Planting more wheat is not always the best idea in every situation, and so I'd trust farmers to make those decisions.

Con has basically answered yes to this question. Prefer my analysis that the answer is no. If you need medical reasons, consider that a fetus cannot survive independently until birth. I challenge anyone to go through a typical MRSGREN chart or similar and show me how a fetus fulfills even half of the conditions for a living thing. I claim the win on this point purely by definition, as well as biological reality. Pro claims a fetus is conscious during abortion and feels pain. This is scientifically inaccurate, especially during the first trimester, when most abortions occur. It should be borne in mind that even late-term abortions cause significantly less distress and suffering than natural deaths, such as stillbirths, also they generally are safer for women than actual childbirth, and also they clearly do not operate on a creature that thinks anything like we do as adults. Even if you have the best memory in the world, I bet you cannot remember being in the womb.

This argument is incredibly demeaning both to those children and those parents. If you want stress relief, get a stress ball. Birth rates are indeed higher in those countries, but it is not because they need more hungry mouths to feed - it is a combination of sex being the only enjoyable thing they have, birth control being hard to come by, and yes, abortions usually being illegal in those places. That's awful because it means thousands more children are born to a life of misery because a lack of family planning has meant they cannot be adequately cared for.

Despite taking on the full burden in this debate, my opponent has still not provided a clear reason to disbelieve in the resolution. He has completely ignored and in fact conceded my first argument. Therefore their case must fall outright.

The resolution is affirmed.