Legalization of Abortion

I thank CON for his clear and concise arguments. Abortion has always been a touchy topic and I must admit that I’m a little out of my comfort zone here, but nevertheless, I have decided to give the debate my best shot. So getting to the debate, I would like to commence this round by addressing CON’s argument’s in the previous round so that the continuation is maintained. In his first argument he says that “Aborting a child is murder.” But the way through which he drew this conclusion is actually, erroneous. The faultiest among the premises that he applied, is the third one, where he claims that ‘Ending a life is murder’. The fallaciousness of this reasoning can be demonstrated by replacing some of the variables in the logic, for example: 1. All living creatures have life. 2. Tape worms are living creatures 3. Ending a life is murder 4. Killing a tapeworm is ending a life Conclusion: Killing a tapeworm is murder. He also states the fact that murder is illegal, so accordingly, killing a tapeworm is illegal. As you can see, taking a life is not the equivalent of murder and there are definitely no reasons as to why it should, as CON claimed, be illegal. Also something that needs to be made clear here before moving on, is that: A foetus is not a human being: A foetus cannot be called a human being. Only after cutting the umbilical cord, does it gain independence and become a human being, until then it is a part of the mother’s body just like other living organs and tissues inside her. Just as how, you cannot call ‘seeds’ as ‘trees’, nor, can you assign them the same value, a foetus is not the equivalent of a human being. In CON’s second argument he comes to a really weird conclusion. He reasons that: No man or woman can legally murder another human being. It is unjustifiable. An unborn child is alive Conclusion: Much like you cannot kill at dog for peeing on your lawn, you cannot kill a baby for being in your body. I do agree with his first two statements but I don’t really follow the conclusion. By following CON’s logic of ‘ not killing any living things inside your body’, we should then all stop taking medicines or cease getting treatment for diseases because the micro-organisms or tissues that come into our bodies, are living things. Anyhow the point is that the conclusion that CON makes is unsound. For his third argument he states that only a few cases of abortion were reported in which rapes and incest were the reason. But this statistic does very little to help CON as such because, firstly, victims of the above mentioned, very rarely come out in the open and admit their situations and secondly, the place taken into study is America, a nation that is well-developed and modern, there would be drastic contrasts in lesser developed countries not covered by the statistic. The resolution for this debate isn’t region specific, so CON should argue from a general perspective than a specific one. And with that done, I move on to my own arguments: Abortion is not done unnecessarily:Abortion is stereoypically viewed as a decision that a crazy or dumb teenager recklessly takes. But that is not the case. I) Women don’t voluntarily get pregnant to get an abortion: Women don’t get pregnant just to get an abortion. It’s not something that they fancy undergoing. Only unintentional or unplanned cases of pregnancies lead them to opt for abortion. Making abortion illegal would be like punishing them for an accidental mistake they did. II) Not doing an abortion might spoil their future or destroy their dignity or both Abortion wouldn’t be chosen by women if they had the option of having a good life ahead after the baby is born. In almost all cases abortion is either done to save a women’s future or dignity. For example, a teenage mother wouldn’t be able to take care of her future and her baby at the same time. III) Poor parenthood and low quality lives: Forcing a women to deliver a baby that she doesn’t want, means adding an extra responsibility to her that which she didn’t need or was incapable for. It isn’t irrational to assume that children growing up in such a situation would be under neglect and without care. These children would end up having low quality lives and would be paying for a mistake they never did. Illegalization of abortions would on the whole lead to negative impacts: My adversary argues for illegalizing abortions but he fails to present any positive gains on how illegalization would be actually helpful.I) Women will seek abortion anyway So if abortion is made illegal, would all the women who want to get an abortion suddenly change their mind? No, that is not the case. They would still be bound by the circumstances that would want them to get an abortion. An estimate done in the U.S during the 1960s says 200,000 to 1.2 million abortions happened illegally per year.[1] Another comprehensive global study showed that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.[2] Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”[2] II) Illegal abortions tend to be dangerous for women: Illegal abortions are usually performed by people lacking the necessary skills, or in an environment lacking minimal medical standards, or both. These are dangerous to women and can be life-threatening. Legalizing abortions would hence give women the opportunity to come out openly and seek professional help. Obviously justified cases: Some cases like where the life of the mother is threatened, cases of rapes, cases when there is a possibility that the baby would be born with dangerous diseases or physical handicaps etc., justify abortions without the need of any arguments. Hence, even if this constitutes only a smaller section of all abortions, it means that my stance has with that already been partially proved. And with that I conclude this round. I believe I have made my case firm. Over to you CONRef: 1: http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org... 2: http://www.nytimes.com...