Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

DEBATE: Abortion Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RMNDK)
    x
    1) I'm not saying that religious practices have fundamental truth, nor that the purpose of debate is to discover these fundamental truths. I am saying that using religions that are against to abortion and finding exceptions does not magically become in favour of abortion. What might work is to find several other religions that are for abortion to begin with maybe ones that aim to reduce total suffering or something like that.

    2) Your counterargument against playing god was flawed for the reasons I said. If OP used that it would not be in favour of pro-abortion.

    3) Philosophy is all well and good but it isn't the only weaponry available in a debate!

    4) Murder being intrinsically evil obviously does not depend on other premises such as evolution, principle of least harm etc. It is morally wrong because no-one has the right or ability to take another's life without worse consequences occurring. There is no-one who deserves to live less than someone else therefore if someone murders someone else, the murderer must always pay for it. In many societies this means capital punishment therefore at least two people die as the result of one act. This is a worse consequence than the murderer foresees therefore the act is wrong in and of itself.

    5) I don't agree with your harm argument as I don't believe there is such a thing as objective harm, especially not one that can be calculated/estimated.

    What your a,b,c argument amounts to in my mind is that the fact that the act of abortion does occur, someone must be weighing up the odds of harm and concluding that they are reduced by the act, which justifies it. Not only do I not believe that these can be or are attempted to be weighed up, this does not change whether the act itself is morally wrong or not.

    If intention is good but outcomes are bad then we must always stop the outcomes. Both intention and outcomes must be good. In the case of partially bad outcomes, who's to say if there is net bad or not? Is it the person doing the act? This is the definition of vigilantism and is usually always against the law.

    Do you live your life like this? Can you provide any examples of where you do things with bad consequences to achieve a greater good? I'm sure I don't. If you don't either, then how can you excuse changing your behaviour for a single act i.e. abortion? That would be the very definition of an arbitrary act.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    why would you debate abortion ethics in a biology class? biology doesn't involve ethics, it involves science.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    How are your GCSEs going so far?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.