The Instigator
DanPeter
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
400spartans
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Abortion

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: 3/3/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 355 times Debate No: 71021
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

DanPeter

Con

Pro-life doesn't take away a women's choice.

You commented, "It's the mom who gets to decide. She may not want to have a baby, for reasons unknown." as to why you are for abortion.

Why should the mom decide whether the baby will live or die? It's certainly not the mothers choice once the baby has been born. It sounds a little harsh, but the mother can choose whether she wants a baby before she gets pregnant. Of course people often have "unplanned pregnancies" but we all know that a women can choose to have or not have a baby by using contraception, not having sex or the timing she has sex. To say that a women has no choice suggests that she cannot control her own sexual behaviour, which is ridiculous. Even then, adoption is an option. If the mom doesn't have the choice to kill the baby once he/she is born, why should it be any different a few weeks before? By you're argument, why not legalise a women murdering her child at any age if she may not want her child for reasons unknown?

Many countries have a child protection agency in place that will remove the child from the parent in serious case of neglect or abuse. When a child's life is in danger from his/her parents it obvious that there needs to be intervention to protect the child. It doesn't matter what the parents "choose" or why they chose it, they've "chosen" to cause harm to their child and now they've lost their choice to parent them. Why can a mother harm her unborn baby for whichever reason she desires?

In more complicated situations, such as the mothers life is at risk if she gives birth I can understand why the mother would undergo an abortion, but this is a very small minority of women who get abortions.
Nobody is taking away the choice of the women before conception, but once there's human life in the womb, the choice has already been made to have a baby. People can be responsible for their actions and choices you know, but what about the life of the baby who never gets to make a choice but gets killed for "reasons unknown"?
400spartans

Pro

The basis behind Pro-Choice is very simple. A quick death of a baby is better than the torture of a mom and a baby (and the dad in some cases)

Torture is actually worse than death, as it is times when you want to die, but you can't, that are the most painful.

Now for some rebuttals.

"the mother can choose whether she wants a baby before she gets pregnant"
"but we all know that a women can choose to have or not have a baby "

Here's the most common scenario.

T=0: Woman decides to get pregnant, and feels like she and her husband can support a child.
T=3-6 months: Incident puts wife or husband out of work.

Now here is abortion vs non-abortion

Abortion Timeline:

T=7 months: Wife aborts. Recovery is slow
T=9-18 months: Recovery finishes, wife and husband happy.

Non-abortion timeline:

T=7 months: Recovery is slow
T=9 months: Baby born, Recovery comes to a halt
T=9-33 months: Mom and Dad and Child all have to work extremely hard to keep themselves alive.

Abortion, while killing one person, protects the torture of two or three.

"Why can a mother harm her unborn baby for whichever reason she desires?"
"why not legalise a women murdering her child at any age if she may not want her child for reasons unknown?"
"If the mom doesn't have the choice to kill the baby once he/she is born, why should it be any different a few weeks before?"

The now-born equivalent of abortion is called putting a kid in a Foster Home, not killing the baby. Death only happens in abortion because there is no other way. Death is not intentional in abortion. It is just a side effect.
Debate Round No. 1
DanPeter

Con

Thanks for accepting this debate :) Here's my response:

On the flip side, the pro-life argument is also simple. From conception there's a human life inside the womb. This isn't disputed by either pro-lifers or pro-choices, modern science indicates that the beginning of life occurs sometime after the fertilization of an ovum by a sperm cell(1). This human should be protected and receive basic human rights. Abortion by deliberately killing the human is murder.


A couple always has a choice whether they want a baby or not before conception. Pro-life does not take away this choice but promotes responsibility for the choices made. I understand your argument that during pregnancy unforeseen circumstances can arise that make having the baby more difficult then at first expected, but your argument is weak. Let me show you:

You said:

"A quick death of a baby is better than the torture of a mom and a baby (and the dad in some cases). Torture is actually worse than death, as it is times when you want to die, but you can't, that are the most painful."

&

"Non-abortion timeline:

T=7 months: Recovery is slow

T=9 months: Baby born, Recovery comes to a halt

T=9-33 months: Mom and Dad and Child all have to work extremely hard to keep themselves alive."


Since when did hard work equal torture? You have a very loose definition of torture if you think it's what hard work is. Killing another human so that you don't need to do hard work sounds like a very bad trade off for the deceased.


It's true that some cases of torture are so awful that the individual would rather die, but to suggest that a mother and father would die rather then do hard work seems overly dramatic and simply out of touch with reality. A better wording for 'torture' would be that the mom and dad are greatly inconvenienced and made uncomfortable. Many women who have unplanned pregnancies and become single parents will later say it was the hardest thing they did but also the best. This is the case for two of my family who both had teen pregnancies and became single Moms.


Pro-life does not take away the choice of the mother, but promotes responsibility of her choices and protects the baby's future choices. Once a mother has made the choice to have a baby, she then has the responsibility to care for it. In fact, your mother did the very same thing for you. The only time a baby is imposed on a women is when she has been rapped, which is exceptional circumstances and should be treated as such. Other times pro-life does not take away a women's choice but promotes taking responsibility for the choices she has already made.

I would like to ask you some questions for your next round if you would be kind enough to answer them:

Do you consider killing a human life for convenience or financial difficulty murder?

If human life begins shortly after conception, which modern science agrees, why should this not also be considered murder?


(1)http://bdfund.org...

400spartans

Pro

From conception there's a human life inside the womb. This isn't disputed by either pro-lifers or pro-choices, modern science indicates that the beginning of life occurs sometime after the fertilization of an ovum by a sperm cell."

Second part of the second sentence ("modern science indicates that the beginning of life occurs sometime after the fertilization of an ovum by a sperm cell"): True
Other: False

Why is this? Well, this "unborn child" doesn't have consciousness or pre-existing consciousness yet. This only happens when the nervous system is mature (3-4 months in). Therefore, you can't say it's human life.

So you might say, "It's still killing life, so it's murder!"

If we look in the dictionary, we see the definition of murder (http://dictionary.reference.com...) :

3. a group or flock of crows.

I mean:

1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)

Key snippet is "the killing of another human being." As I've shown, the fetus isn't life until 3-4 months in, so abortion isn't murder.

"Many women who have unplanned pregnancies and become single parents will later say it was the hardest thing they did but also the best."

Many more will say that abortion was good for them. http://www.1in3campaign.org... Yes. 1 in 3 women have had an abortion. There are stories you can read about these abortions.

"Pro-life does not take away the choice of the mother, but promotes responsibility of her choices and protects the baby's future choices."
"Once a mother has made the choice to have a baby, she then has the responsibility to care for it."

I believe you wrote those two sentences while ignoring my Abortion/Non-abortion timeline.

"In fact, your mother did the very same thing for you."

I would not like to be born in a family where my parents have to work very hard just to live, as there will most likely be bad food and bad shelter. It may not be torture, but it's something that would be very hard to live through.
Debate Round No. 2
DanPeter

Con

"Why is this? Well, this "unborn child" doesn't have consciousness or pre-existing consciousness yet. This only happens when the nervous system is mature (3-4 months in). Therefore, you can't say it's human life."


This needs to be sourced. You claim that the baby only has a self-conscienceless at 3-4 months, I highly doubt your unknown sources are correct. It's a bold and unlikely claim. At 4 months the baby is developing reflexes and is even sucking their thumb!(1) Within the first 8 weeks the nervous system of the baby is developed enough to feel pain(2). Than means babies are in pain during an abortion if conducted after 8 weeks! An organism cannot feel pain without being self-aware. Regardless of the baby's own level of self-consciousness, self-consciousness is not and should not be a prerequisite to be considered "human". A fetus is fully living and is the offspring of two human beings. It's a stretch to argue that it is not human and current scientific thought does not agree with you. Science does not distinguish whether an organism is human or not depending on it's level of self-consciousness.

"As I've shown, the fetus isn't life until 3-4 months in, so abortion isn't murder."

You have not shown this. You've attempted to argue that since the fetus has not yet fully developed his/her nervous system it isn't a human. Since I have shown that the baby does have a self-consciousness much earlier, abortion after 8 weeks by your own definition is indeed murder. I've also made the case that self-consciousness is not a prerequisite to being called "human".


"Many more will say that abortion was good for them. http://www.1in3campaign.org...... Yes. 1 in 3 women have had an abortion. There are stories you can read about these abortions."

This does not hurt my argument. The plain fact that it was good for these women to have an abortion does not mean it was torture for them not too. I wasn't arguing that having an abortion could be favourable to some women, I was making the point that to have a baby and to care for it, even in dire circumstances is not torture and is not worse then death. I will make the point that each of these women made a choice then regretted those choices, but there are other ways we can help those women. Killing a life to make it better is not okay.


"I believe you wrote those two sentences while ignoring my Abortion/Non-abortion timeline."

I did not not ignore your timeline. I wanted to re-emphasize my original point that pro-life does not take away a women's right to choose but promotes responsibility for her choices.


"I would not like to be born in a family where my parents have to work very hard just to live, as there will most likely be bad food and bad shelter."

I would rather be born into an affluent family too, but I'd also rather be born. It's better to be given a chance, whether that be difficult then to be killed.


(1)http://www.babies.sutterhealth.org...
(2)http://www.abortionfacts.com...
400spartans

Pro

This needs to be sourced. You claim that the baby only has a self-conscienceless at 3-4 months, I highly doubt your unknown sources are correct."

Fourth paragraph:
http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Fifth paragraph:
http://thebrainbank.scienceblog.com...

Four and Five:
http://civilliberty.about.com...

"Within the first 8 weeks the nervous system of the baby is developed enough to feel pain."
http://www.newscientist.com...
http://www.motherjones.com...

Even people against abortion disagree with you.
http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com...

"An organism cannot feel pain without being self-aware."

Since the <20 month old fetus doesn't feel pain, this statement doesn't do anything.

"Regardless of the baby's own level of self-consciousness, self-consciousness is not and should not be a prerequisite to be considered "human". A fetus is fully living and is the offspring of two human beings. It's a stretch to argue that it is not human and current scientific thought does not agree with you."

Hmmm. I find it very suspicious that there are no links referenced here. How about we find a link or two?

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org...
http://scienceblogs.com...

"It's better to be given a chance, whether that be difficult then to be killed."

1. Please check your grammar. Not trying to be a Grammar Nazi here, but use "than" instead of "then"
2. Your comment on how within the first 8 weeks, the baby can feel pain? When the baby is born, it can definitely feel pain. Do we want to make this child feel pain for years? Or do we want this child to not feel this pain, and instead, not feel anything at all?

One last thing. The irony of most Pro-Life people is simple. Most "believe" that human life starts at conception, and ends at birth. (note: this isn't really what they believe, but that's what most act like) What I mean is that most take away all protection of the baby when it's born. Health-care? Nope. Decent education? Nope. That's one reason why I'm Pro-Choice.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by DanPeter 1 year ago
DanPeter
Werdna1999,

It's interesting that you would compare those two very different situations. A mother chooses to have a baby, not the other way around. A mother chooses to have the unborn baby live inside her, the baby has no other choice. To create life then to neglect it is very different to not helping someone who is sick at your own dispense. If a mother seriously neglects her child or newborn it's considered abuse and is a criminal offence. I've witnessed the effects of a child who's gone through serious neglect. It ain't pretty. If it's criminal to neglect a newborn, why is it okay to neglect an unborn baby and even intentionally kill him/her? Both are humans both deserve the right to live. Let's discuss this more! I saw you have an open debate, I'll accept it!
Posted by werdna1999 1 year ago
werdna1999
Adoption costs a lot of money, some people can't afford it. Also a mother should be able to deny her body to her fetus, just like you can deny donating your organs to a person in need
No votes have been placed for this debate.