Abortion

Let's begin. First off, my opponent has stated that abortion is 'unethical'. So as Pro, it's my job to show why abortion is ethical. Ethical: [. http://dictionary.reference.com...] "Dealing with morals" Morals: [. http://dictionary.reference.com...] "Concerned with right and wrong" I'll redefine what I must do using the definitions provided. I must show that abortion is morally more right then morally wrong. So, by what standard do we decide what's right and wrong? Well, we analyze the possible outcome of the situation, and whichever one is either the least harmful or most helpful to the greatest number of people is the 'right' outcome. So will the result of abortion be more beneficial than the result of not aborting. "Over population in the World" According to [. http://www.overpopulation.org...], the world is suffering from an over population problem. This means that there is not enough space to contain the amount of humans that need to live in that space. Over population is an extreme problem in China, where they can only have one child by law, in an attempt to reduce the overpopulation problem. If a woman is not allowed to abort her baby, this means that she is FORCED to have that child. There are 42 million abortions a year in the world. [. http://www.abortionno.org...] If abortion is not done, then this will drastically increase the number of people coming into the world, and will create even more over population problems. Overpopulation leads to scarcity of resources, health problems, and environmental issues. One such problem is global warming. Global warming is a problem that has been rapidly growing, and can be connected to overpopulation. [. http://www.buzzle.com...] If global warming continues to increase, the climate can become unstable and potentially destroy all life on earth, including humans. So which is the moral decision, 42 million dying, or 6,200 million dying? "reason for abortion is justified" Usually, the mother has a reason for wanting to abort. This can be because they can't take care of a child, because that child would destruct the layout of their current life, or because the child wasn't their fault. If the mother can't take care of the child, that child will most likely live in poverty. Poverty is a growing problem all over the world, and is extreme in certain countries, and abortions can cut down on poverty. Remember that poverty not only affects those in it, but everyone else as well through the economy, crime, and creating an even larger gap between middle and high class. So the question is once again 42 million or 6,200 million. "extremely young children aren't the same as aging humans" That's a sketchy title, but basically the point is that a child in the womb has no experience living, and no knowledge. It doesn't know about life and death, and has no will to live or die. It has no human thought, and is only affective by natural desire (unlearned), the same that animals do. So if we can kill an animal, then why can't we abort. Abortion itself hurts no one except the fetus, which doesn't have human thought. The effects of aborting are far better than the effects of not aborting. IN SUMMARY I've shown that the benefits of abortion outweigh the outcome of not aborting. It is more beneficial, and therefore right to abort. If aborting is morally right, then it is completely ethical, and not at all like my opponent makes it out to be.