abortion

As the resolution is vague, then I shall say here that I shall be arguing for why abortion is, on balance, bad.Definitions:Abortion-Judging from the opposition's first round, it must then be defined that our abortion case is that of convenience abortion only, not any incovenience abortion (such as that of life threats, rape, and premartial pregnancy)Objections to Arguments Raise By OppositionSince we are talking about a cost-analysis representation of "abortion" then we shall clearly see that abortion is hamrful towards the "greater good" Let us make the assertion that a moral act cannot derive from an immoral act; not that immoral acts can lead to moral acts in the future, which is a possibility, but that when something has origins in an immoral act, then when the process goes on, there is no possible way that any moral factor/worth could be extracted from it, or that the action could ever be morally justified. If a person has sexual intercourse, not for the sake of having a child, but for the sake of pleasure, then bears a child, without any ideas of "protection" from pregnancy, then firstly, that is an immoral act. As will be said in the following contentions, morality is that which will maximize the happiness and the general well-being of the external conditions; of the "greater good". For how can a society ever hope to be ethical, if killing is condoned? It would not be an inch moral to say, henceforth, that convenience abortion is moral, and henceforth just, for that would be to say that killing, for the sake of saving money, is moral and just. If the child was created, for the sake of a side affair and pleasure, then that is already immoral as an act, and nothing that can follow it can be considered moral, except for the conventional way of treating such conditionals. Arguments from MoralityThe only actions with moral worth, accordingly to Kant's theory of ethics, are those derived from pure good will; for if someone helps someone for the sake of helping, and not from the sake of good will, then that person has done no moral worth to himself, or anyone around him. Kantian Good-Will is based upon the fact that whatever lies behind all moral actions are duty, and this good-will, as a groundwork for further ethical judgments, will be the only factor that differentiates from what is moral, and what isn't.Firstly, the first postulate to sexual intercourse is off-shoot; this is the only moral type of intercourse, as their is a good-will behind the action. Accordingly to the categorical imperative theory, there are two formulations for the determination of morality. The first one is based on maxim, and the second one is based on Machiavellian ethics.The first formulation, namely, is that no the maxim you act upon goes upon no contradiction of anything hypothetical, and this act will be moral regardless of conditionals. Let us first apply this to the abortion issue; abortion is more or less killing a fetus; killing is a maxim, immoral except in some conditionals. This, however, does not prove that abortion is moral, it just proves that it can sometimes be just. If, then, abortion is immoral in all instances, even if it can be just, then why would any moral person be for abortion, for the maxim that goes and holds true for every conditional, is to not kill?The second formulation is to act as if the means were an ends in itself. This is a quasi-Machiavellian ethical stance; to act as if the means has to be moral, so that the end can be moral. This was highlighted in the first objection already; for if the origins of something is immoral, then the process that follows it has to be immoral, unless a universal maxim without contradiction was put into it, and this incites a string of moral actions. As proven in the previous paragraph regarding the first formulation of ethical acts, abortion necessarily goes against the universal maxim of the destruction of killing. If the origins of an action (abortion) is in itself immoral, then no actions that violate any universal maxim can be moral, which seems to prove that abortion is not an ethical or moral thing to do.Even if it is a duty to abort a child, then that duty would prove to be of no moral worth, as the good will is soon destroyed by the maxim of one shall not kill, and all maxims have more moral worth than conditional duties. Apart from this, if killing is condoned in a society, then how can that society hope to be ethical? It is pure karma if that society Arguments from HealthAbortion is a health issue, and should be tackle from both a moral and health perspective. From a health perspective, abortion can cause long term diabetes and heart problems, which would be ultimately, a strain upon the society. Apart from this, psychological problems deriving from abortions can ultimately be inevitable, as the ever recurring guilt of taking a human life away from one is always recurring. Abortion also causes more deaths, albeit this is rare. Arguments from Utilitarianism and Greater Good PolicyBuilding upon arguments from health, abortion destroys the concept of the greater good; it pulls society behind. An implication of an immoral action, which has already been proven from arguments from morality, will further lead to society having to take care of a "citizen" (I cannot say so) who has committed an immoral act, when society has no obligation to do so. Like us assent to say that all those who go to convenient abortions, are weak minded and have no place in society, for they let their emotions control them on the fateful night, when it should always be reason that controls them.The weak, psychologically, then destroys the society; for the society has to tend to the weak, has to look after the weak, and has to pay for all of the weak's bills, when society has no obligation to help the weak. The weak is always immoral, or at least, the "weak" in question here. Society is not a hospital, benefits not a free ticket for living; accordingly to statistics, abortion sufferers are more likely to use government benefits than normal parents. [1] The main goal of society is to provide a happy existence for the citizens who abide via the moral values/maxims that were laid down upon them, upon assention. When a citizen violates these maxims, then why should society stop and help that citizen? It would be as just as helping the immoral. As proven in the arguments from morality, abortion is necessarily immoral, excluding conditionals. Anyone who participates in the actions of abortion, cannot ever hope to gain a place in society, for they hamper the development of society and the lives of those who are morally minded.Arguments from Natural SelectionApart from this, let us note that albeit we have won the game of natural selection, it would be necessarily for man to still contain their evolutionary origins. The human brain was designed to enjoy sex, for sex creates off-shoot, and this helps us win the game of natural selection. Abortion potentially has the abilities to destroy the formula (man+woman+room=off-shoot) for our victory in the game of natural selection.Let us affirm that natural selection, and ultimately, the earth, is a game of might and survival; we humans are gifted by our brains, who apart from being able to yield cognitive behaviours, are designed to do and enjoy a very beneficial activity for our kins, that of sex. Here I am not arguing that since sex is beneficial, everyone should have it, but I am arguing that since (in an abortion based concept) sex has already been done, then one should expect an off-shoot, and embrace it; for humanity (perhaps not mother nature) will always benefit from another off-shoot.With this said, the opposition's arguments for sexual freedoms inherently contradict the underlying logic of sex; sex creates babies, and that is the only moral and just type of sex that anyone could have. The resolution is henceforth negated.[1] http://tinyurl.com...