Are abortions morally wrong and should they be illegal?

@Dee I agree with women having their own right to choose.

I think that anything can be justified in a particular moral framework. But you are asking about mine, are you not?

In my moral framework, the highest value is individual freedom, and the highest virtue is respect of others' individual freedom and protection of one's individual freedom. One of the manifestations of the individual freedom is ownership of your body, including everything that happens inside of it. Just like I would not want a random person to decide whether I am allowed to masturbate or not, I do not want to decide whether a random woman is allowed to perform abortion or not.

Furthermore, when it comes to my interactions with people, I always approach them from the point of mutual interest: "I am interacting with you because it makes my life better and because, I believe, it makes your life better as well". I do not see how telling someone that performing abortion - a huge decision - makes them evil makes their life better, or mine for that matter.

Now, let us make it personal: suppose the girl I am with decides to abort a child. I would like to have children, but her independence is more important to me, so I would not even want to argue, regardless of what decision I hoped she would make. However, if we agreed to have children and worked on that, read books on how to raise children, talked a lot about how to discipline them and so on - and then out of the blue she says, "You know, my love, I actually do not think I am ready for children, so I will undergo abortion" - that would be very questionable ethically, as I believe strongly in keeping one's word, no matter how painful it can be. When I tell someone that I will do something, it will take a few nuclear bombs launched in my direction to prevent me from doing that - and I expect others to commit to keeping their words, at least, 1% as firmly.
That, however, has nothing to do with it being abortion specifically and applies to anything else.

MayCaesar said:

I think that anything can be justified in a particular moral framework. But you are asking about mine, are you not?

In my moral framework, the highest value is individual freedom, and the highest virtue is respect of others' individual freedom and protection of one's individual freedom. One of the manifestations of the individual freedom is ownership of your body, including everything that happens inside of it. Just like I would not want a random person to decide whether I am allowed to masturbate or not, I do not want to decide whether a random woman is allowed to perform abortion or not.

Furthermore, when it comes to my interactions with people, I always approach them from the point of mutual interest: "I am interacting with you because it makes my life better and because, I believe, it makes your life better as well". I do not see how telling someone that performing abortion - a huge decision - makes them evil makes their life better, or mine for that matter.

Now, let us make it personal: suppose the girl I am with decides to abort a child. I would like to have children, but her independence is more important to me, so I would not even want to argue, regardless of what decision I hoped she would make. However, if we agreed to have children and worked on that, read books on how to raise children, talked a lot about how to discipline them and so on - and then out of the blue she says, "You know, my love, I actually do not think I am ready for children, so I will undergo abortion" - that would be very questionable ethically, as I believe strongly in keeping one's word, no matter how painful it can be. When I tell someone that I will do something, it will take a few nuclear bombs launched in my direction to prevent me from doing that - and I expect others to commit to keeping their words, at least, 1% as firmly.
That, however, has nothing to do with it being abortion specifically and applies to anything else.

I'm missing something I guess, from your argument.  Why is it OK to violate the bodily autonomy of the child?  She has no say in the discussion, and it is her life that is at stake.  Do you extend this view of its OK to kill people past leaving the womb?  For instance, would it be OK to kill a newborn baby because she is inconvenient to you and makes your body ache with all of her demands? If a homeless person was living uninvited in your yard, would you kill him?  Is it OK to kill an elderly person, if they are dependent upon someone to live? If not, then it seems to me that you have judged the child in the womb as less than human.  On what basis do you make that assumption? 

@MayCaesar

I think that anything can be justified in a particular moral framework. But you are asking about mine, are you not?

Okay explain away. How is criminal legislation of law morally a perfect connection to established justice when a person is either innocent or guilty without the aid of a united State constitutional right when being not guilty does not mean you have been found in legal right?

Why have American Exsecutive officers held along with congress and the courts the 1st Amendment in a broken state of union with consitutional law?

@MayCaesar

I do not think it is. I do think, however, that you do not owe them any sustenance by default. You do not get to kill a homeless person, but you do get to expel him from your yard - by force, if necessary. And if the homeless person somehow finds his way into your body and starts feeding on it, then everything goes.

And yes, the creature in the womb means a lot less to me that any human being living autonomously. My moral system allows for differentiation of treatment by level of existence - hence, say, it is "more okay" to hurt a tree than it is to hurt a dog, in general.

So, you do consider the unborn as a lesser creature.  You have dehumanized them.  You used an analogy comparing two different kinds of things.  However, an unborn baby girl is the same kind of a being that you are - a human being.  To be autonomous means 'existing or capable of existing independently'.  That would disqualify newborn babies as they are not capable of existing independently.  It would also disqualify most children, many elderly who can't live without assistance, those who need dialysis machines to live, those in comas, those who need oxygen tanks to live, and even scuba divers who are dependent upon oxygen tanks to survive.  So, its OK to kill any of them anytime you want, right?  If you were consistent in your rationale to dehumanize human beings it would be.  

'Autonomy' is an arbitrary trait you have put forward to rationalize your pro-baby killing position.  The fact is someone's humanity is not based on their size, location, age, or dependence.  Your logic is not really very different from those who rationalized slavery or the killing of Jews in Nazi Germany.  The Nazi's said that Jews were not capable of being citizens, and at first took their guns from them.  Then they took their businesses from them.  Then they took their lives.  Slave owners rationalized that their slaves were not fully human.  They deemed them as having less value because of their race and status.  If you can see that the Nazis and slave owners were wrong in their arbitrary rationale for dehumanizing the ones they sought to harm, then you can see your arbitrary measure is no different.  Whether you will admit it or not, you are dehumanizing the child so you can treat them in a way you would not other human beings.

@OliviaDebates

@OliviaDebates

I am sorry I just kinda got confused haha. What do you mean?

No worries, I was not speaking about you ignoring me. Abortion has been a long-time topic on this debate site with people who often understand little about constitutional rights. Abortion was found to be unconstitutional in America back in 1973. The state of Texas has had legal bands on abortion dating as far back to 1857. Pregnancy is unconstitutional as it does not exist as a United State Constitutional Right a topic not described in a way that cannot place it inside the United States Constitution means it cannot be recognized as being fully lawful. The process is only described in criminal law without legislation based on Constitutional Right as a higher form of law. Like a female elected as officer in the oval Office pregnancy abortion has not been described by correct legislation of law only legal interpretation of crime held against American Constitution that has not even be written as a United State Constitutional Right. So, the principle argued will never be a United States Constitutional Right until it is by proper legislation in writing shaped as a United State Constitutional right and ratified by the states.

A law cannot be enforced if it has never been written, can it? Lawyers have never advised or written the termination of a pregnancy in a constitutional way holding a united state with right and no crime. Women and men have gone on written record saying it was a choice they officially had made themselves. Even the voters have done this on multiple occasions. Not that I even believe it was ever legal counsel’s fault. As it was a product of malpractice of law by people who have been using a broken state of the union made in the 1st Amendment. All the talk about a past generation of women having solved the issue was just a lie, both they and men had no clue. They had simply stopped working on the Constitutional issue when allowed to perform the crime if it had been admitted to. Criminal admission is enforced differently in many States throughout the Country. Watch the room will die as no one will understand the literal difference between organized crime and organized United States Constitutional Right.

Argument Topic: If anyone is interested in joining a zoom to have a good debate about this please respond to this.

Please message me if anyone wants to have a virtual debate on this topic or any topic. I think it would be fun. Message me a date and time that works best for you so I can set something up!

Argument Topic: I'd be more worried about fake abortion clinincs and the spread of disinformation and misinformation.

@Vaulk

There only seem to be a handful of valid arguments that can stand on this topic that don't fall apart when tested and they are all circled around the idea that the unborn Child is a living being and that they possess Human Rights.

    Untrue, the child is living is true however the child does not have Human Rights as it cannot be arrested for attempted murder so that part of the argument is untrue. The fact of the matter remains the people have failed to establish a connection with established justice through United States Constitutional Right. Abortion is established as a crime for it has been connected to a crime through legislation of criminal law. not American Constitutional Right which is also law. The argument of pregnancy abortion is a malpractice of law based off of people who do not even how a license to practice law whereas it is a American Constitutional Right to establish the more perfect union with Justice by creation of American Constitutional Right. Not understanding the Creation process of these rights is not an alibi to allow them to go on uncreated. Pregnancy abortion violates the 1st Amendment as a whole when not practicing law and is illegal often when used in criminal legislation of law. 

@Dreamer

Whats the point of pointing out 93% of abortions occur in the first trimester if you dont disagree with the 7% that occur after?

If you think the 7% is gross or immoral than you should set a limit.  If you dont than you should be comfortable with those 7% of abortions.

Also the video you posted is just pure opinionated nonsense.  These CPCs are malevolent because they try to assist people while discouraging abortion.  They dont offer real choices because they dont allow the one I want, killing babies.  

@Dreamer

Thats the morning after pill, and yeah they wouldnt know if theyre pregant, but they take it because they think they might be.

They are not fake abortion clinics if they dont advertise they perform abortion centers.  And theyre not stalling, the purpose is to provide support other than abortion.  So the support they provide is assuming they will continue the pregnancy.  You and the video are assuming the only legitimate support is an abortion which in my opinion is pretty nefarious.

@just_sayin
You mentioned violence against abortion mills, but apparently are unaware of the violence that occurs at crisis pregnancy centers.  Within a months after the Supreme Court overturning Roe vs Wade, over 100 crisis pregnancy centers and churches were attacked..   Bombing, burning, and defacing crisis pregnancy centers and churches by pro-baby killing extremists is just wrong, as any physical attacks on abortion clinics would be.  Don't you think?

The Supreme Court of the United States of America didn't overturn Roe vs Wade Just_sayin the court simple wrote an opinion on a legal malpractice of law sending the malpractice down to the States. Pregnancy Abortion is governed as a criminal law, abortion is said to be a crime in writing not a right, a United States Constitutional Right is a second way in which to address issues of grievance by 1st Amendment A) Criminal law, Constitutional Right, the two are both laws. When the court found that Roe vs Wade was unconstitutional by executive Officer #45 or anyone else in its long history it does not mean that it was impossible for the people or legal counsel to ever propose a United States Constitutional Right. The people and legal counsel simply had chosen not to just like those in this debate forum. By refusing to work on the matter however does mean it is blocked from ever becoming ratified into American U.S. Constitution.

The 1st Amendment state of the union with established justice by American Constitutional Preamble is often broken under protection of the courts while council practice law with a license for the people. A person addressing in public citing the broken freedom of speech made in the courts does not have a United States Constitutional blessing to do so, as the people are no longer preserving, defending, or protecting the Article of Constitution as a President or Presadera.

Argument Topic: The violence against anti-choice groups is disturbing.

Argument Topic: Hmmm, fox news again.

To me it is logically inconsistent to say that abortion up until birth, which is usually between 39 to 40 weeks gestation, but say that killing a newborn, who was delivered at 26 weeks gestation is wrong.  To make this claim, the person must dehumanize the life of the unborn child.