The Instigator
NathanGimel
Con (against)
The Contender
Unstobbaple
Pro (for)

Abortion for socio-economic reasons

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
NathanGimel has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 12/19/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 411 times Debate No: 105470
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

NathanGimel

Con

The format will be Round 1: Initial arguments, Round 2: rebuttal and defense, Rounds 3 & 4 more of the same, and Round 5 closing arguments.

We"ll be arguing about abortions that are carried out for socio-economic reasons. This is sensible since around 98.3% of all abortions are undergone for purely socio-economic reasons, naught to do with health, rape, incest, etc. (this from official data taken from surveys done by state agencies and the Alan Guttmacher Institute)

So, I will base my argument on this simple statement: that if we can agree that the foetus is human, we will have shown that abortion for socio-economic reasons is wrong. I don"t think that Unstobbaple would disagree with this (or its converse), and I will not bother with mental harm to the mother, which though somewhat relevant, pales before the harm done if the aborted foetus is human. To be clear, if we show that they are humans, we"ve shown that abortions are objectively wrong for anyone to carry out so long as you agree that humans shouldn"t be killed for socio-economic reasons.

These are my central arguments for why abortion is wrong:

1. The physical differences between a foetus and an adult human are not enough to justify the stripping of the foetus of that most fundamental right to live. The famed S.L.E.D. works well for demonstrating this:

1, the size: should a dwarf be stripped of his rights because of his size? Can it be allowed for a prematurely born baby the size of a hand to be killed in the manner of an abortion? Clearly not.

2, the level of development: when you say that the foetus doesn"t possess the mental faculties of a human, whether the prefrontal cortex or self-awareness, I would point out that by that standard infants less than 3-months old can also be summarily executed, since only at three months does the number of synapse connections jump enough (from around 50 trillion to a quadrillion) to allow (limited) self-awareness.

3, environment. A common argument heard is that "it is my body, and that is that!". Besides the fact that it is a rather childish argument, to compound it all it is nonsensical. Let us imagine a slightly distasteful scenario: a couple are engaged in consensual kissing. Suddenly, the woman bites off the tongue of the man (rearrange or change nouns as you wish). Should that be legal? Is it right? Should it ever be allowed? With respect to the foetus, the "biter" is the mother; don"t even try to twist this into the baby invading the woman"s body, making the baby some type of home invader: not only did the woman know pretty well what was going to happen before conception (remember: socio-economic), but we can compare the loss: the loss of life for the unborn, to the invasion of the mother"s personal life by a being innocent of all wrong.

4, degree of dependency: if viability bestows human value, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them, not to mention that the venerable Dr. Hawking would rather quickly kick the bucket.

Whew! So on to the second central argument: this is one is much more ripe for debate. But remember! Only one of these two central arguments need be conceded by my opponent for us to be satisfied that abortion should not be carried out (assume from now on that I refer to socio-economic abortions only), i.e. for me to have won this debate (which would hopefully be carried out by you, the voter).

2. Chop up the whole of the period between conception and birth into seconds (how did you know that I love calculus?). Now, is there a difference in the right to live between that of a newborn and a baby one second away from birth? None of you would say there exists any. Now, go back, second by second... by second... by tedious second... until conception. Now, at what point is that foetus no longer a human but just a bunch of useless cells? Remember, if you choose a point in this dare, you are saying that just one second makes or breaks the foetus" right to live. Unstobbaple gave in a comment the argument that since we set ages at which certain actions can be done for teenagers, we should set an age at which the foetus can no longer be killed at the whim of the mother. But this is very flawed, because you are comparing the killing of a human being with the decision of a self-aware human who"s not even undertaking an action with certain death as a result. (I will expound on this more in the next round, if my opponent uses the argument.)

These are the reasons why abortion is wrong, and should hence be made illegal.

By the end of the five rounds of debate, I sincerely hope that all who followed it are either strengthened in their conviction that abortion is wrong, or if they believe otherwise, are changed in mind. I can only hope that nobody"s support for abortions borders on belief, in the face of which no logic can hope to disassuade.

Gimel
Unstobbaple

Pro

The right of the mother to control her own body is the primary concern and not the rights of the fetus which are not strictly relevant.


The right’s of a woman with respect to pregnancy.


In the Roe VS Wade case, “ the Court chose to decide the case on constitutional rather than medical or philosophical grounds.” It based the decision on the rights of the mother entirely during the first and second trimester. [1] This completely negates Con’s arguments which focus on the level of development of an embryo or fetus with respect to medical knowledge negating (1. 1, 2, & 2.). That we are discussing the rights of the woman and not the rights of another made Con’s tongue biting example and the level of dependency (1. 3, 4,) irrelevant.


The court did conclude that since there is no medical viable life before the third term a fetus before that stage is not entitled to the rights of a citizen under the 14th amendment. There is no reason to grant a fetus/embryo the status of human before this point since it cannot exist on it’s own.


With respect to the constitution and the pro choice position in general Con misses the point.


Con is asking for special rights for Embryos/Fetuses.


A woman’s rights are exactly the same as those in similar situations. A man or woman cannot be forced to use their body to save the life of another and a child is no exeption. I could refer to organ transplant, for instance a kidney or a piece of the liver, but a hypothetical is more informative. If a parent decided to connect their blood flow to a child’s in order to filter their blood, assuming this were possible and that it were keeping the child alive, this would be their decision.


At the same time it would be their decision to disconnect this connection and it would be both illegal and immoral to prevent this disconnect even if it meant the death of the child. This is because we respect the right of the individual to use their body as they see fit. They would not be obligated to continue to filter their child’s blood regardless of their motivation for stopping, whether it be economic or otherwise. In fact it would be illegal for the same reason the Roe vs Wade decision ended as it did.


This is directly analogous to an abortion in which the goal is to terminate the pregnancy or clip the cord of dependency between a mother and a fetus. It simply allows a woman to no longer support a fetus whose end is a side effect and not the goal of an abortion.


Anti-choice advocates are asking for special rights, not granted to citizens, for the fetus when they demand that a woman continue to support a pregnancy against her wishes.


In response to Con’s objections:


Most abortions are first trimester procedures.


At this stage the fetus is completely dependant on the mother and cannot survive on its own. While it has a resemblance of a 2 ½ inch alien it does not have brain activity that is anywhere near that of a human being [3]. The aspects of the human brain that make us uniquely human and more advanced than other animals [4] does not begin to form until the third trimester. Most abortions are performed in the first trimester [5] when there is nothing that would qualify as human other than the precursors of some physical human features. This is a very safe and cautious way to avoid any question of loss of life and ensure all babies are brought into functional homes prepared to raise functional healthy children.


In vitro fertilization and the day after pill or first month abortions.


In vitro fertilization frequently fertilize multiple eggs and the precedent is set that these can be discarded and are not considered human. The day after pill is a form of abortion along with first month abortions are just an alternate version of this common procedure that is completely legal in many areas including virtually all industrialized including the U.S., Canada, China, Uk, Japan Italy, Spain etc etc [6].


It’s estimated that 66% of pregnancies end in miscarriages so this is a natural process [7]. It is not at all uncommon to have an early miscarriage or have an embryo fail to attach to the uterine wall. This again is similar to the day after pill which is a form of abortion that simulates this common natural occurrence.


First trimester Fetuses are completely dependant on their mother.


This is why abortions in this time must necessarily end in the termination of the fetus and I only say this to emphasize that this is not the goal. From Roe VS Wade "the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment [of the US Constitution], does not include the unborn." This is highlighted by the birth date as the start of our personhood that guarantees our citizenship and the rights afforded us.



[1] https://tinyurl.com...

[2] https://tinyurl.com...

[3] https://tinyurl.com...

[4] https://tinyurl.com...

[5] https://tinyurl.com...

[6] https://tinyurl.com...

[7] https://tinyurl.com...


Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Unstobbaple 1 week ago
Unstobbaple
Yeah, future citizens are the same as ours. I'm not clear what the argument is but I'd restart this if you'd like to.
Posted by mosc 2 weeks ago
mosc
No one generation makes a nation. The rights of the future born citizens equals to the rights of the current born generations.
Posted by Unstobbaple 6 months ago
Unstobbaple
Common Gimel!
Posted by Unstobbaple 6 months ago
Unstobbaple
Ok, you can just reissue the challenge now.
Posted by NathanGimel 7 months ago
NathanGimel
Sure! No problem. If you can get someone to reset it, go ahead.
Posted by Unstobbaple 7 months ago
Unstobbaple
Fk I'm sorry. I forgot about this as I was planning on deactivating for a week. If you still want to do it I think Max can still reset these. I always have a notification that I have a debate round due with the forfeit bug so I keep forgetting. I've done this with like 10 debates.
Posted by NathanGimel 7 months ago
NathanGimel
Sorry about that, I just thought that there was so much to talk about that we should use all 5 rounds. Also, would you mind if I drummed up interest a bit in the forums? - Gimel
Posted by Unstobbaple 7 months ago
Unstobbaple
I got trashed the night the debate was due. I'm planning on trying round 2. I'd just thought R1 was for acceptance.
Posted by Unstobbaple 7 months ago
Unstobbaple
Just busy, I'll accept tomorrow if that's cool.
Posted by NathanGimel 7 months ago
NathanGimel
So, not to hurry you or anything <lying through teeth>, but do you think you are in for this debate? - Gimel
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.