The Instigator
glowingdisco
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
junior_dominator
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Abortion Defiles the Unspoken Rights of an Unborn Baby

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,007 times Debate No: 37023
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

glowingdisco

Pro

Firstly, I must say that I am pro-choice but anti-abortion. I believe the pro-choice vs. pro-life battle is nothing but a "keep abortion centers open vs. close them down" war instead of properly educating the recipients for this medical procedure.

My argument is that abortion defiles the unspoken right of an unborn child. In a world steaming with the word "equality" sometimes I feel that the recipients for equality are one-sided and that others are neglected.

Unborn children are one of them.
Their right to live is ripped away from them, but in a world full of the idea of "equal rights for everyone", where are their rights? Or are they not people at all?
junior_dominator

Con

I will argue the opposition.

Definitions

pro-choice: emphasis on the right of women to choose to bring a fetus or embryo into term(1)(2)

pro-life: emphasizing the right of the fetus or embryo to be born(3)(4)

rights: "the fundamental normative rules of what is allowed of people, or owed of people in a legal system, social convention, or ethical theory" (5)(6)

abortion rights: support for the right of women to access medically induced abortion(7)

anti-abortion: opposition to medically induced abortion(8)(9)

equality: state of being equal in status, rights, and opportunities(10)

voluntary abortion: an induced abortion performed for purposes unrelated to medical reasons, like maternal health or fetal distress, that is normally performed before the fetus is able to survive outside of the womb.(11)

I will assume for now that my opponent is talking about voluntary abortions. There are abortions that happen for medical reasons because of the baby endangering the mother and other problems that can occur during pregnancy. If my opponent would like to argue against all types abortions, please state so.

No person can ever have the some opportunities that others will get in their lifetime because of different circumstances of something happening. Equality, it goes against observation. People are inherently unequal. To do our best to make everything close to equal would be nice, but we ourselves are imperfect. The idea is nice, perhaps something to strive for, but unfeasible when we are realistic.

In terms of rights, children are guaranteed in certain countries rights, but little are they given in way of autonomy. They are not often given the full list of rights until they meet a certain age criteria. This does not mean that fetuses get the same set of rights as children. They are still inside the mother, and they are ultimately under her influence. Why should the fetus be guaranteed the same rights as children when they are not children?

It's claimed that abortion is murder, but we continuously kill other species without a second thought. We tend, as a species, to put ourselves above the other species around us, when they can be just as important to the ecosystem, or devastating, something we may not even realize.

My opponent gets to the point very quickly of when an embryo/fetus becomes a person. This is a wide topic of debate that brings many fields of interest into play. For example, we can take the example of the fact that a baby has hardly even developed mentally as well as physically upon exiting the womb. Even though it's come a long way, it has 1-2 more decades until it will be released from it's parents home. This fetus does not have any sort of personality as of now, and still has many years until a fully fledged personality is developed. Are fetuses persons? In a sense, they could be considered non-persons, as they have not developed a full personality, and cannot exist outside of the womb. Even young babies could be cut out of the definition of persons(depending on how you define it, and there are numerous ways (12)). For some the definition of person hood is that of when you become self-aware. The definition of person hood is rather ambiguous and different people see it in different ways, which makes this issue more difficult to determine.

Overall, it is my belief that the right of the woman stands over that of the fetus. The mother is already autonomous, for the most part, and is guaranteed a certain amount of rights that the fetus is not. If it is her decision to not have a baby, then she should be allowed to exercise his right.

Thank you for participation in this debate, it is really appreciated.

(1)http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
(2)http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3)http://en.wikipedia.org...
(4)http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
(5)http://plato.stanford.edu...
(6)http://en.wikipedia.org...
(7)http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
(8)http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(9)http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
(10)http://en.wikipedia.org...
(11)http://www.encyclo.co.uk...
(12)http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
glowingdisco

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my debate on this sensitive topic matter.

Firstly, I am referring to abortions that happen primarily because the mother feels there that she cannot raise a child according to certain situations. So no, I am not talking about abortions that take place when the mother is being endangered by the pregnancy.

No person can ever have the some opportunities that others will get in their lifetime because of different circumstances of something happening. Equality, it goes against observation. People are inherently unequal.

Equality does seem impossible in today's age, that point I agree with. But in a world striving for equality, it seems the idea of equality is one sided. The people who feel at risk for inequality are usually women, gays, lesbians, etc. But in their goal for equality, they sometimes have disregard for others who are at risk for inequality during their feat for equality, such as men, unborn children, heterosexuals, etc.

That is what's happening in the pro-life v pro-choice battle. Pro-choicers want freedom and want the equality to make decisions with their body as they please. But what about the equality of the fetus? Does it not deserve an equal right to live as we all have?

It's claimed that abortion is murder, but we continuously kill other species without a second thought. We tend, as a species, to put ourselves above the other species around us, when they can be just as important to the ecosystem, or devastating, something we may not even realize.

Yes this is also devastating, but this debate is not about the killing of other species, it's about the killing of our own unborn species.

My opponent gets to the point very quickly of when an embryo/fetus becomes a person. This is a wide topic of debate that brings many fields of interest into play. For example, we can take the example of the fact that a baby has hardly even developed mentally as well as physically upon exiting the womb. Even though it's come a long way, it has 1-2 more decades until it will be released from it's parents home.

So you're implying that at the time of birth, a newborn child's quality of life is no different than that of a unborn fetus's?

Are fetuses persons? In a sense, they could be considered non-persons, as they have not developed a full personality, and cannot exist outside of the womb. Even young babies could be cut out of the definition of persons(depending on how you define it, and there are numerous ways (12)). For some the definition of person hood is that of when you become self-aware. The definition of person hood is rather ambiguous and different people see it in different ways, which makes this issue more difficult to determine.

I beg to differ. Fetuses as young as 28 weeks after conception have been born prematurely and have survived. (1)Some clinics perform abortions at this stage. (2)

Overall, it is my belief that the right of the woman stands over that of the fetus. The mother is already autonomous, for the most part, and is guaranteed a certain amount of rights that the fetus is not. If it is her decision to not have a baby, then she should be allowed to exercise his right.

The only reason that a woman is guaranteed a certain amount of rights that the fetus is not is why abortion is legal. A fetus has no rights whatsoever but in a matter of months it will have rights. I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty twisted.



(1) http://www.lilaussieprems.com.au...

(2) http://www.southwesternwomens.com...
junior_dominator

Con

Thank you for a prompt response.

The point made about equality on the part of abortion rights is not about different interest groups but about the nature of equality itself. In our strive for equality you state that certain interest groups are disregarding those who are apparently at equal risk for inequality. It's interesting because you mention the men and heterosexuals in the same group as unborn children. The interesting thing is that men and heterosexuals are often those that disregard the rights of women and sexual minorities(1)(2)(3). You group unborn children with men and heterosexuals. For all you know these unborn children could be lesbian women. They are undetermined as an interest group. They are not yet born and cannot have any interests.

You also talk about how supporters of abortion rights want freedom and equality to make decisions with their body. The real question is why shouldn't they have this basic right? The fact is that they do, It is enshrined in the constitution in the Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Although this applies only to the United States, this is one of the places where the abortion debate is heated.

Prior to viability the rights of the fetus are null. It is up to the mother to determine what she wishes to do with her baby. You are correct in that some of the abortion clinics permit abortion to happen up to the 28 week mark. With that data aside, what of those who do it previous to this time? It is well within their rights as autonomous individuals to have an abortion previous to the time in which a child is viable outside of the womb. A mother should not be required to have a child she does not want.

Definiton:

person - one who is able to attribute to their own existence some basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to them

Regarding the implication that at the time of birth a newborn child's "quality of life" is no different than that of an unborn fetus's. This is exactly the implication. At the time of birth there is no difference between that of the baby and the fetus in terms of their personhood. They are human, but not yet persons. If we take the example of children who are born with a crippling disease such as down syndrome, then we have one who is a burden on not only the family but on society itself. Especially if the state provides for their care. The moral standing of the child outside of the womb is equivalent to the child inside the womb. This means that even after birth abortion isn't reprehensible, accordingly with these guidelines, as the child has not developed to the point where it can experience a loss.

You say, "the only reason that a woman is guaranteed a certain amount of rights that the fetus is not is why abortion is legal." There are other reasons beyond the rights that the women gets. There are also economic and social reasons as to why a woman may not want to have a child. Perhaps she is too poor, or doesn't have the time to take care of a child. There are a myriad of reasons why a woman may not or should not have a child. Perhaps they are inept as a person and not responsible enough to have one. I have already affirmed that simply because the child is out of the womb, does not mean that they have any right to life.

Thus it can be said that abortion is within the right of the mother and is unrelated to the child itself. This means that the child should have no say in this argument. It has no right to life if the mother wishes not to give it.

(1)http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2)http://humanrightshouse.org...
(3)http://www.dw.de...
Debate Round No. 2
glowingdisco

Pro

The point made about equality on the part of abortion rights is not about different interest groups but about the nature of equality itself. In our strive for equality you state that certain interest groups are disregarding those who are apparently at equal risk for inequality. "It's interesting because you mention the men and heterosexuals in the same group as unborn children. The interesting thing is that men and heterosexuals are often those that disregard the rights of women and sexual minorities(1)(2)(3)."
In the name of "feminism" many times you see that in order to build "sexual equality", women belittle the men. A group of people (women) who are fighting for equality (to be equal with men) tend to belittle men (a situation where a woman would feel herself superior over the man) in the name of equality (the state of being equal, esp. in status, rights, and opportunities) [1] If "feminism" is the act of a woman proving herself SUPERIOR over a man, it is no longer "sexual equality" it is the act of women being the superior gender.

You group unborn children with men and heterosexuals. For all you know these unborn children could be lesbian women. They are undetermined as an interest group. They are not yet born and cannot have any interests.

And a newborn baby has not made the decision to be either heterosexual or homosexual. So therefore they are undetermined as an interest group. A newborn baby does not have interests.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
What does the term person mean? Person = a human being regarded as an individual. (2) What does the term human mean? Human = of, relating to, or characteristic of people or human beings; a human being, esp. a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien. (3) "NOR SHALL THE STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY..." A person is a human regarded as an individual. If you can use the evidence found in pregnancy for the intellectual development of a fetus, and use the evidence to justify abortion, then you can also justify killing a newborn baby. A newborn is not born with "intellectual development". I am not saying that a newborn in brain-dead, but neither is a fetus. At ten weeks after conception, the fetus' vital organs such as kidneys, intestines, brain and liver are starting to function. (4) At ten weeks after conception, a baby's vital organs, including the brain, start to FUNCTION, not FORM, but FUNCTION, which means to
work or operate in a proper or particular way. (5) If the brain starts to function, then that would lead any intellectual person to assume that the fetus is not brain dead, but a living organism with functioning body parts such as we have.

A mother should not be required to have a child she does not want.
Interesting point. I'll touch on this later in my argument.
And your definition of a "person" was not the same thing I Googled, and you did not provide a source so I'm afraid that definition is irrelevant and could have been forged by you.

Regarding the implication that at the time of birth a newborn child's "quality of life" is no different than that of an unborn fetus's. This is exactly the implication. At the time of birth there is no difference between that of the baby and the fetus in terms of their person hood. They are human, but not yet persons.
So you have admitted to the fact that fetus's are "human" but not yet "persons". What defines a person? Their stance in society? Their view on politics? What their goals are? So, if you haven't checked out my profile yet, I'll let you know that I am a teenage girl. Let's say I got pregnant and decided to deliver the baby. I have the baby but I realize, "oh crap, I'm too young for this." So I take my two-day-old baby home and kill it.
What you have just done, is that you have compared a newborn baby to a fetus, as in terms of quality of life and rights. If it is legal for me to abort my unborn child (according to your statement made above) then it should be legal for me to kill my newborn baby, which is in no terms more advanced than a fetus (according to you).



You say, "the only reason that a woman is guaranteed a certain amount of rights that the fetus is not is why abortion is legal." There are other reasons beyond the rights that the women gets. There are also economic and social reasons as to why a woman may not want to have a child. Perhaps she is too poor, or doesn't have the time to take care of a child. There are a myriad of reasons why a woman may not or should not have a child. Perhaps they are inept as a person and not responsible enough to have one. I have already affirmed that simply because the child is out of the womb, does not mean that they have any right to life.

This is where I comment on your other point made, "A woman should not be required to have a child she does not want".


Perhaps she is too poor, or doesn't have the time to take care of a child.
That sounds like a personal problem to me. If a woman knows that she is too poor or does have the time or the desire needed to raise a child, maybe she should use birth control or contraceptives. It isn't the fetus's fault that its mother was irresponsible, so why should it face the death penalty? The fetus had no control over how it was conceived and who its parents are; so why should it be killed? And if a woman any regard for life, maybe she should give her unborn child a chance at life and put it up for adoption. The only two options are not abort or raise the child. Adoption is a healthy alternative.

Thus it can be said that abortion is within the right of the mother and is unrelated to the child itself. This means that the child should have no say in this argument. It has no right to life if the mother wishes not to give it.

Abortion is in the right of the mother but it is not unrelated to the child (*gasp* you used the word "child" to describe a fetus??????? *shocked*).
The child is the one dying, so it has everything to do with the child.
And yes the child has no say in the argument but a newborn baby has no say in whether it can be flushed down a toilet or left in a garbage bin.
Your argument clearly does not differentiate the difference between a newborn and a fetus (which is what most pro-choicers do), and your stance is very disturbing in nature.
My point has been proved. Vote Pro like your life depended on it.








(1)
https://www.google.com...
(2) https://www.google.com...
(3) https://www.google.com...

(4) http://www.babycenter.com...
(5) https://www.google.com...
junior_dominator

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for the sharp response.

You misconstrue what feminism is. You, without citation, provide that it belittles men. This is not the case, as feminism, if anything, provides for the equality of the sexes. This is its definition (1).

You affirm my point that the unborn and the newborn have no interests

I apologize for my lack of clarity on my definition for a person. There is no universal definition for person. It varies from person to person (2)(3).

The point is that these unborns are not functioning to the point of being individuals. They aren't self-aware. They don't even have a conscious. Consciousness doesn't develop until you're into 24 to 28 weeks gestation(4). Previous to this point, the unborn is not aware of itself. Even then, this awareness is not even comparable to the awareness that we possess in the later stages of development. It is limited and lacking what an entirely developed person would possess.

It's not always a personal problem. People have sex for pleasure, not necessarily for the result of a child. Contraception isn't always effective(5)

In your contention on the differences between a newborn and a fetus, let's be precise. A fetus can be viable outside the womb at about 28 weeks. Seeing as this is the same time as the fetus develops conscioussness, it is justifiable to say that this is also when they become a person. In comparing a newborn to a fetus, they are barely different in terms of their biology. Their quality of life is about the same. The difference is that their rights are different. Or are they? In Roe v. Wade, it was determined by the Supreme Court that in the first trimester or previous to viability, it is ok for a woman to have an abortion(6). This is where the difference comes in. It has to due with the viability of the fetus outside the womb.

Often times people are not poor due to their own problems. There are more forces at work then just "personal problems". Considering that previous to 28 weeks, the fetus cannot live outside the womb, is it even alive? It doesn't yet have a functioning body. It should also be pointe out that the child itself, at 28 weeks, cannot be kept alive without the use of technology. Naturally, it would just die.

A newborn and a fetus can be considered very close after a point. The fetus at some point is viable outside the womb, and at this point can become a newborn.

Child: an unborn or recently born person

It should be noted to the audience, the political framing that goes on when people speak of pro-choice and pro-life. My opponent participates in this. "Vote pro," my opponent says, but with little distinction of which pro is being referred to.

I'd like the audience to think carefully about this issue. Consider it like this, if women are not allowed to have an abortion, they will be forced to have a child they don't want or can't support. If they have it and don't want it, they may mistreat it. If they can't support it, it will be disadvantaged. If they give it up for adoption, we can't be sure where it will head to. It could go to a terrible home that doesn't give it what it needs.

This is why we should allow women to have these basic rights.

(1) http://i.word.com...
(2) http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
(3)http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
(4) http://www.scientificamerican.com...
(5) http://www.cdc.gov...
(6) http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
(7) http://i.word.com...
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by glowingdisco 3 years ago
glowingdisco
Let me clear up Con's argument for the voter..
I know what feminism is. The point I was trying to prove is that nowadays, feminism is often about women being superior to men, not gender equality. Yes that is not what true feminism is about but that is the mindset of many radical feminists today.

And I said "Vote Pro" because I am the "Pro" in this debate. I was not referring to Prochoice, ProLife. ._.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
I would totally argue the merits of killing a fetus if I had the time to invest in this lol. Leave this up and you will find someone who will take it quick enough.
Posted by theHomelessPanda 3 years ago
theHomelessPanda
I don't really know anybody who is "Pro abortion"... I don't know that you will find anyone that will argue the merits of killing a fetus.
No votes have been placed for this debate.