Abortion

I knew that my opponent would take this debate on moral and religious backgrounds. I will be dedicating this round to be explaining how abortion is actually moral and an ethical decision to make. Terms: Morality-principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Utilitarianism-the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority. The doctrine that an action is right in so far as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct. Oxford dictionaries My opponent claims that he himself has the upper hand when it comes to morality. I will refute these claims by equating Abortion to real life scenarios where morality is a matter of much debate: Warfare-There are many examples that I could pull that prove that morality is very variable when it comes to intense situations. This is especially true when it comes to warfare. Japan-As we all know, America launched an atomic bomb on Nagasaki. 60,000 to 70,000 people were innocently killed in this bombing. Did America have to take those innocent lives? This is just an example where there can be a debate about morality. Morality is very variable when it comes to certain situations as represented here. My opponent could claim that Japan was the enemy, and we needed to drop the bomb in order to end this war. That is also true, but America could have won the war in a very different way. We could have launched an invasion without taking innocent lives. The problem with that is we risk loosing a significant amount of soldiers on our side. Again, there can be a debate when it comes to morality here. I feel like I have to address this, because pro-lifers usually will assume they are the most accurate when it comes to defining morality. I will be arguing utilitarianism which is also an ethical value. Utilitarianism-I support Abortion, because I believe that it is the greatest benefit for the mother. However, I do believe that there should be regulation when it comes to the amount of the times a mother can abort there child. Now, lets apply utilitarianism to mothers that are faced with this difficult decision. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -42% of women that get an abortion are below the poverty line: Poverty line-If one makes below16,000 dollars per year. How much does it cost to raise a child? A child's cost per year is $12,800 - $14,970. Now, try to make a single mother raise a child with that much money coming in per year. My opponent would be na"ve to not know the reality, consequences, and long term effects of this given what I provided in round 2. --------------- "As a homeless, unwed, teen mom, I often wondered if anyone could hear me. Did anyone hear me cry at night? Did anyone hear the screams? Did anyone understand my struggles? Was the pain on the outside of me as loud as it was on the inside? Would we eat tonight or go hungry again?"-By Jennifer Barnes Maggio One can look at this empirical evidence, and see how this example can be applied to many that are going to have to experience this lifestyle if they decide to have that child. This also is not about just the mother. The greatest benefit would be for her not to have that child. The child should not even have to experience that kind of lifestyle with that mother. It is actually a negative. The reality is that a family will experience these harms if my opponent makes it harder for one to acquire an abortion. -Children growing up with one parent have a higher probability of dropping out of school. -Trouble keeping jobs as young adults. -Mother-only families are more likely to be poor because of the lower earning capacity of women, -The median annual income for female-headed households with children under six years old is roughly one-fourth that of two-parent families. -Approximately 53 percent of single mothers are not in the work force because they are unable to find affordable, quality, child care - The majority of these mothers have no high school diploma, leaving them with few job opportunities or jobs that pay only the minimum wage. -Parents with two or more children often have little money left after paying taxes and child care. -Single parents experience a variety of stressors related to poverty (i.e., financial, emotional, social). -Financial strain is one of the strongest predictors of depression in single parents. I think that it is clear that the benefits outweigh the harms in this scenario. I offer these questions to my opponent. 1. Why do you want a family, or single parent to experience this lifestyle? 2. Is it moral for you to have a family experience this? 3. What is your reaction to how the child is predicted to live? I think that it cannot be more obvious that utilitarianism wins here. The greatest benefit would be for the woman to acquire an abortion in order to save her, the father, and the child from depression, stress, and eventually suicidal thoughts. "A mother low on money can apply for charity, goverment assistance, or put the baby up for adoption." How easy is it for a poor person to apply for government assistance? How easy is it? How come poverty has not been dissolved already if it is so easy. It might be easy for you and I, because we have had an education about this matter. But, it is probably very hard for a poor person who does not have a substantial education matter to apply for government aid. Adoption costs 50,000 dollars. The people that are in these demographics cannot possibly afford that. http://www.bing.com...