Debate Rounds (3)
First point: Abortion is not necessary.
Many pro-abortioners believe that they have a strong point when they use abortion as an answer to saving the mother's life, should there be complications or illness. In 2012, medical professionals in Dublin concluded that abortion is never necessary to save the mother's life. It is possible to give alternatives for those in danger, such as inducing an early delivery and increasing the chances of saving both the life of the mother and the child. A former abortionist, Dr Anthony Levatino, agreed: "During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by "terminating" pregnancies [via live delivery by C-section] to save mother's lives. In all those cases, the number of unborn children I had to deliberately kill was zero." (1). While there is, of course, the possibility that the child may not survive, their chances are far, far higher than those offered by abortion, which promotes that idea that killing the child solves the problem and that it is the best way to do so. Abortion is not necessary, so why is it so popular?
Second point: Abortion is dangerous.
Abortion is very dangerous for women (not to mention it kills the baby most of the time). In fact, it is more dangerous than childbirth. While the accepted statistic is that childbirth is the more dangerous of the two, there is still the fact that most deaths by abortion are not recorded. This is due to several reasons. When a woman at an abortion clinic experiences severe complications (eg, from a botched abortion that has caused serious internal bleeding), she is rushed to the nearest hospital and left to the care of the doctors there, as it seems most abortion clinics do not keep doctors who specialise in saving lives on hand. If the woman dies at the hospital, it is not recorded as an abortion-related death on her death certificate. An example of this is shown by a college student who was forced to have an abortion by her parents so she could finish her time at college. She developed an infection which turned septic, she was rushed into ICU, she had brain damage, and was eventually just discharged to a nursing home. When she died, her death was not shown on the certificate as caused by abortion. In 2009, the CDC reported that more than 400 women have died from legalised abortion. These are just the deaths caused by the physical problems. Only 45 out of the 50 states in the US even keep abortion records (2)(3).
For those who do survive with no apparent hospitalisation-requiring side effects, there can be complications further on in life. For example, a woman who has had an abortion and decides later that she wants to get pregnant and carry the child to term is more likely to suffer from problems like ectopic pregnancy or sterility than a woman who has not had an abortion. Ectopic pregnancies are dangerous, and account for twelve percent of pregnancy-related maternal deaths (this is recorded as death caused by pregnancy, not by abortion). A woman who has had one abortion is twice as likely to develop an ectopic pregnancy than a woman who has never aborted, and for one who has had two or more abortions the risk is up to four times as high. Pelvic Inflammatory Disease is also another possible complication, which is an infection that can lead to fever and infertility, and is quoted as being a "common and serious complication of induced abortion and has been reported in up to 30% of all cases". In the year 2000, a study in Finland showed that women who abort are four times more likely to die in the following year than those who carry to term. (4)
Third Point: Abortion has negative mental/emotional side effects.
Emotional and psychological effects after abortion are more common than physical side effects. Such emotional/psychological effects include as follows: regret, anger, guilt, shame, sense of loneliness/isolation, loss of self-confidence, insomnia/nightmares, relationship issues, suicidal thoughts/feelings, eating disorders, depression, anxiety. These side effects are fairly likely to occur, but even more likely in the following situations. Firstly, when the women have been coerced, forced, or persuaded to have an abortion. The fact that they had to be pressured into it means they were reluctant to in the first place, and this would understandably leave them with guilt and shame. Also, no one should ever be pressured into doing something like abortion. I do believe it is murder and many people around the world agree, and if it is being promoted in the name of choice then why are women being pressured into it? Secondly, if they had religious beliefs/moral or ethical views that conflicted abortion. Going against one's beliefs can easily leave a person feeling guilty and shamed, and with the feeling of having done something horribly wrong. Thirdly, if the women had no S/O or partner, and if the baby was reported to have had genetic/fatal abnormalities, or if the abortion was carried out at a later stage in the pregnancy (5). A woman whose baby would not have a father figure in its life may feel under pressure to abort the baby due to financial stress or not wanting it to live without a father figure, but afterward may look back on her situation and see that it was not as desperate as she imagined. Also, a baby with genetic or fatal abnormalities should not be aborted for that reason. There are many babies who have conditions such as microcephaly and Down syndrome who are living wonderful lives and bringing such joy to their families (6). Babies with genetic abnormalities deserve love and to be cherished. Whether they will die days after birth or years after, they deserve the opportunity to be loved and not killed before being given the chance to live. There are babies who have, despite all expectations, lived longer than the doctors said and they have brought joy to their parents, not to mention the peace that comes with knowing you gave a child life rather than took it away prematurely.
My final point: Abortion breaks the Hippocratic Oath that all Medical Students have to take.
All medical students do, at some point, have to take the Hippocratic Oath (in some variation or other, but still the same oath). In the Hippocratic Oath's original form, there is included the following statement, "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art." Anthropologist Margaret Mead said concerning the Oath, "For the first time in our tradition there was a complete separation between killing and curing...One profession, the followers of Asclepius, were to be dedicated completely to life under all circumstances, regardless of rank, age, intellect- the life of a slave, the life of the Emperor, the life of a foreign man, the life of a defective child..." (Asclepius was the Greek god who the doctors/physicians of that time followed). The 1948 Declaration of Geneva brought the Oath up to date, including the following statement, "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity." And the 1949 International Code of Medical Ethics states also, "A doctor must always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life from conception."(7). Abortionists are considered to be doctors, but they are clearly breaking this oath that they took upon joining the medical profession, as they are causing death and showing no respect for human life, which an unborn child obviously has. Abortion comes highly recommended these days, despite the oath which should probably be considered a little more. As abortion can be so destructive to women and is pretty much always death for the child, we can only say that abortion "doctors" have broken the oath and have no respect for human life, and are using their medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.
I have finished my first argument and await my opponent's rebuttal with immense anticipation. Here are my sources, and I wish you the best of luck.
Although Just titled "Abortion" I am making a common assumption that we are debating both its moral grounds and its inscription in law.
This is a multifaceted debate which will need coverage of all points to show that it is either immoral or moral and should be illegal/legal.
Finally, Burden of Proof is on both sides.
That is all, now before I make my full case as to the reasons why abortion is not murder as to why it is the more medically sound option as to the different types of abortion and why modern technology has nulinvoided all your points. I will rebut your essay on one facet of this debate the medical aspect.
Before I make my rebuttal I will outline what I would implement if I were to win this argument. Abortion would only be offered in the first trimester by the process of medical abortion. if this fails then we can explore surgical means if necessary in a case by case basis as well as anyone who wishes to have an abortion after the first trimester.
Let's start, checking your sources first up so we can see the legitimacy of your "facts" we see sources (2,3) which are supposed to back your claim that people are dying because of abortions yet when clicking on the links we get a 404 error where the page in question has been removed I assume that this is because of such misinformation but we cannot know all we know is that you're trying to base arguments on a false premise. what else will we find in your sources? in your third course all it does is emotive garble with no facts and only a few case studies and assumptions to back up your claim, the very same site also makes claims like "Fact #12: Prior to abortion's legalization, 90% of abortions were done by doctors, not by "coat hangers in back alleys." which are a gross misrepresentation of the facts implying that it was better back when they were illegal which, as I will expand upon in my arguments, is completely incorrect.
Now to start off the rebuttal to your content.
Your point about the necessity of abortion. Your Dublin professional has received much backlash for this statement and its legitimacy as simply put, He was Wrong. There are many cases in which an abortion in needed in order to save the mother's life (1). Medicine is not a subject in which there are defined black and white lines on what is best for the patient as there can be so many variables determining the health. Your "alternatives" are medically risky as without the abortion you are effectively gambling with the mother's life as well as the unborn child and it is not up to you to decide to take the chance. the cases in which it generally accepted to be necessary is that of severe infections, heart failure and severe cases of preeclampsia then there are many more cases in which an abortion is recommended but I have a character limit to keep to. So to round this off you talked about the chances of keeping the unborn child alive are much higher if we don't abort well of course but if we don't abort the chances of losing both increases in many cases and that is something you comment on later saving one life at the cost of another is not morally ok so by your own logic your point cannot stand. if we know we can save one we won't risk that one, unless that one has consented to it, risking it in order to try to save two.
How dangerous abortion is. Now here you have misconstrued how abortions take place saying how dangerous it is for women. well since the legalisation of abortion, contrary to your sources baseless belief, the percentage of people dying through abortion has decreased. I cover this in my main argument but just quickly ill explain the ways in which a child is aborted. there is medical abortion, which I am pushing for, which provides the mother with two drugs methotrexate or mifepristone sometimes followed by misoprostol.(5). what these drugs do is they tell the body to naturally abort the child, naturally meaning that sometimes there are miscarriages naturally and this tricks the body into dealing with it like that, so the only consequence is a slight increase in cramping over normal and none of the archaic and outdated procedures you described are needed. finally, before moving into your third point I just want to make a comment that association is not causation I can find an association between the number of deaths in a family vs the number of TV's they own it doesn't mean giving everyone free TV's will increase their survival. so all of your correlations between woman whom abort are "4x more likely to die in the following year" is just fear mongering. All based off a site whose legitimacy I have already put into question.
The negative Emotional/Mental side effects. Now for this one, I would like to refer to your own source (5) I have taken the very first paragraph as to not cherry pick - "Abortion can emotionally affect each woman differently. Some women report a sense of relief after having an abortion.The reasons for relief also vary from woman to woman.". the way you have described this feeling is quite misleading, almost one-sided, as you have only quoted the negative feeling associated with abortion when in fact many people have positive feelings after abortion like that of freedom, relief, control over both their mind and body, joy knowing they can live the life they choose not the one you are trying to force upon them. you state there are problems in a small number of cases where women are being forced into having an abortion when in fact before you have an abortion one has to go through multiple sessions with the physician to assess the situation and recommend treatment so this pressure if is such and the issue can be reduced there. but this is not a reason to take abortion off the table for and entire populous. before I move on just pointing out that many women in the 21st century are not looking for a male father figure in their child's life they are trying to do it all themselves and all respect to them so saying that this is a pressure to have a strong father figure, oops no we missing that time to abort is an absurd statement.
quickly the Hippocratic oath is far outdated and if medical professions all agreed to this oath then they wouldn't be able to perform surgical procedures as this oath your advocating prevents the use of a knife and thus a scalpel. (5) then you misquote the actual vow most doctors take the geneva declaration adding in your own "from the time of conception" to push your agenda. for the full Geneva Declaration see (6)
Now I don't have many characters left because of the amount of rebuttal I had. So, I will explain what life was like before abortion and make a few moral arguments that we need to consider.
Back when abortion was illegal (say 1950's/1960's) the sheer number of people trying to abort in US alone were 200 000 to 1.2 million per annum (there is a variance in statistics as many weren't recorded to the margin of error is great) but even the low estimate of 200 000 people trying to abort their young every year in just America through illegal means is insane. (2/3) these people went through hell and back to relieve the pressure having a child would put on their lives and many of them didn't make it through the journey with reports of thousands dying every year due to illegal abortion techniques is this a world we want to go back to? after we have worked so hard making this legal to take a step back and not use all the medical advances we have to ease the lives of others.
An argument we need to have is the point in which we consider something to be life. as although ignored thus far it is a major topic that weighs many people as it categorises this as murder which has many negative connotations with the word or just the stopping of life before it starts. Making the case for life from conception has problems because as a zygote what differentiates it from any other unicellular organism and why does it get more rights than E. coli or another bacterium that we "clean" of ourselves daily. so how about after the first trimester this is probably the one with the most common ground between our two viewpoints but comes into the same problem as it is only a ball of cells with the emotional capacity of nothing more than a dog and we would put one of them down to save a human life any day. the last and the most definitely is some point after exiting the womb because the baby has taken their first breath and is living separate from the mother as well as they have started the path to cognitive growth which before then was all innate not learnt behaviours. I await your thoughts on the matter.
finally Rape you have talked of the negatives to the mental state of the mother after abortion but what if they were raped and you forced them to keep that child to term. every time they wake up with morning sickness they are reminded, every time they look in the mirror and see the have grown a little bigger, every time that baby kicks, every time they see that child after birth they are reminded of what is considered to be one of the most traumatising experiences of their lives and you are the one who has caused all that pain.
That is the end of my first argument and rebuttal I await your response and thoughts on these matters.
One final word I am assuming as you set the character limit we are not allowed to use links to google docs in order to expand on one's case above that of the character limit. I have refrained from doing.
Character limit- 10,000 is the max I could choose. I am sorry you were unable to be concise enough to stay within the limit.
On the case of the apparent misquote concerning the Geneva Declaration- I quoted it as it was on the website. Also mentioned there was that many variants today do not include "from conception", thought they should not need to as it is clear that is when life begins. I also understand why parts of the Hippocratic Oath are considered outdated but why are you throwing the baby out with the bathwater? I noticed you placed no comment on the anthropologist"s quote of separating killing from curing, which leads into my next point of rebuttal/re-establishment.
Abortion is not necessary. I said it before, and you said that the one man had received backlash for it. I will support it further: In Ireland, abortion is illegal as of very recent developments. According to the UN, Ireland is the safest place in the world to be pregnant/carry a pregnancy through. Pregnant women are never denied treatment, but the doctors are able to work to their utmost to protect both mother and child. It does still happen that the baby unintentionally dies/cannot be saved, but the mother is able to be treated either way if she is ill. Abortion is not a solution.
World renowned cancer specialist, Dr Fr"d"ric Amant, says, "In the case of cancer complicating pregnancy, termination of pregnancy does not improve maternal prognosis."
Professor J. Bonnar (then Chairman of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists), "95% of members of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists surveyed said they could preserve mother"s lives and health without abortion."
Professor Eamon O"Dwyer, "From my experience, I believe I am entitled to say that there are no circumstances where the life of the mother may only be saved through the deliberate, intentional destruction of her unborn child in the womb." The professor also goes on to say that they also support the statement from the Medical Council that withholding treatment from a pregnant woman is unethical even thought it may lead to the death of her unborn child. Whenever possible, both lives are saved, more common than the countries where abortion is offered as an immediate "solution".
While it is true that unborn children may die due to their mother"s treatment, the chances are lower because the doctors are doing their best to save both lives. The ban on abortion there has been accompanied by a fall in the number of maternal deaths (1). If Ireland can do it, why can't the rest of us? I would like you to thoroughly examine the citation (1).
I also wish to comment on your cited example of abortion being "needed" to save the mother"s life. It is rather outdated, occurring back in 2004, while we now have advanced more in medical technology. Dr Anthony Levatino"s quote was as of 2013. He is agreed with by many professionals.
"90% of abortions were done by doctors, not coathangers in back alleys" doesnt mean what you think. It's letting people know that most illegal abortions were in fact performed by doctors and not unprofessional randoms. They were not as dangerous as they were made out to be, and legalising abortion hasn't saved women's lives. That is the point it makes, and you misunderstand this. Pro-abortioners often argue that illegal abortions were so dangerous that the no. deaths caused by them would be greater than the no. deaths caused by legal abortion today. However the number of women who died of illegal abortion before Roe v. Wade was greatly exaggerated. Dr Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist and one of the founders of NARAL, admitted that he and other NARAL members used to claim 5,000-11,000 women died yearly from illegal abortions. He has since admitted the statistic to be "totally false...But in the "morality" of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?" Medical technology has advanced to the point where abortion is no longer needed. Alan Guttmacher, who did more to promote abortion on demand than any other individual, commented in 1967, "Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukaemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life [of the mother]." How far have we come since then? Certainly far enough that abortion should be abolished totally. Also, maternal deaths have been shown to be far lower in countries that have strict limits on abortion, compared to those that don't. (2)
Now I'll rebut the comment about rape. Who are you to presume that a rape victim even wants an abortion, or that somehow abortion would help them to recover from the rape? Why must the welfare of the child and the mother be at odds in your opinion? They may both be helped by preserving life, not continuing violence. A major study conducted on pregnant rape victims showed that 75-85% chose against abortion. This in itself should give you a reason to stop and think about the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims. ~70% of women believe that abortion is immoral (though some think it should be a legal choice for others). About the same proportion of rape victims see it as just another act of violence against their bodies. Some believe their child"s life may have some purpose/meaning they don't yet know.
Rape victims often become introspective and develop a higher sense of value of life and of respect for others. Having been victimised themselves, they wish to spare others (including their unborn child) similar victimisation. The thought of killing their innocent child after having been hurt themselves already is repulsive. Another point is that at a subconscious level, the woman may sense that getting through the pregnancy will mean she has conquered the rape. By giving birth, she can in her mind regain some of the self-esteem she lost. Abortion doesn't magically make a person "un-pregnant". It is a real life process that is stressful and traumatic. One woman said, "I soon discovers that the aftermath of my abortion continued a long time after the memory of my rape had faded...They all told me that after the abortion, I could continue my life as though nothing had happened."(3).
It's true that some women may feel relief after abortion, though if, as you implied, part of this debate is morality, I would question their humanity. I understand they may see it as an answer to financial struggles, but why were they pregnant in the first place? It goes against every motherly instinct to kill your own child, no matter what stage of development it is in.
On the subject of financial stress, that is no excuse for abortion either, despite the fact that it is the reason most women claim for abortion today. But isn't it true that there are children, who are born already, growing up in poverty? They may not be financially stable, but at least they are alive. And it is unheard of for anyone to argue that the mothers of these children should have the right to kill them. No one would sayso because we all know that no amount of financial hardship is worth killing another human being, especially an innocent child. That is the moral side. On the practical side, there are more crisis pregnancy centres in America today than abortion clinics. These function to bring women through their pregnancies by providing them the emotional and financial assistance they need to carry to term and, if need be, to place for adoption- no future finance obligation for those still unwilling. If help is needed it can be found.(4)
I'd also like to address the humanity of the unborn baby. I don't have a citation for this as I will be using common knowledge and morality. Firstly, the child is clearly human. Whether it's developed enough for emotion or conscious thought in the first trimester (which you appear to be aiming for) is irrelevant. It's a young member of our species and therefore we should be dedicated to preserving its life. You compare it to bacteria and few/single-celled organisms, but those are not part of a conscious species and will not become such. They will only ever be bacteria. But a young human of even just a fertilised egg cell is still human- it has only human DNA, and will even begin to look and act human in just a few weeks. I have already mentioned motherly instincts that should be present in the mother too. What reason could we possibly have to kill it, to not protect and support it? We look down on murder of older humans. We have no excuse to condone the murder of under-developed humans that we haven't met yet. It is a person, more innocent than those escaping death penalty or even than those being murdered whom we demand justice for. Now that abortion is unnecessary, why can we not value human life from conception? It's a miraculous thing, to bring another life into the world that will one day have to make decisions like those we are making now. A thinking, feeling individual. It deserves the rights we claim for ourselves. Whomever says otherwise has no respect for human life.
I'd like to close this argument by defining "inhuman": "Lacking qualities of sympathy, pity, warmth, compassion, or the like; cruel; brutal." (5).
I don't wish to regress to when abortion was illegal. I wish us all to progress there, where abortion is recognised as unnecessary.
I am happy to coincide with the rules you set just wish there were a couple more rounds to flesh out this debate with a little more substance.
Your misquotes was exactly that you found an outdated doctrine (two in fact) and tried to pass them off as common medical knowledge all I did was find the up to date one and point that misconception you made out, and as I will outline it is not clear to everyone when human life begins as that is a topic of much debate in itself. You have also used this "Abortion facts.com" site again to justify your argument and like your other sources, they assert facts without haveing any empirical evidence to back them up and make wild claims to support their agenda. Looking at another "Fact" Abortion has become a form of gendercide, shrinking the global female population at an alarming rate. yet globally the number of females has not dropped and their life expectancy is at an all-time high compared to male (9) or another fact "Laws concerning abortion have significantly influenced whether women choose to have abortions." But if you read over my sources (2,3) you will see that's clearly not the case. Unfortunately, I should move onto the topics of this debate ,although there are many more flaws I can point out in your source material I have a case to make.
On the topics of this debate, we are providing the medical necessity far too much of it in this one so I shall make a quick reply and move on because this will only ever affect the smallest percentile of cases and the larger populous is whom we must consider.
Taking from your own source (as little as I trust it) so that you can se the truth from a place you obviously trust Abortionfacts.com (7) - "It is an extremely rare case when abortion is required to save the mother"s life. Of course, when two lives are threatened and only one can be saved, doctors must always save that life. However, abortion for the mother"s life and abortion for the mother"s health are usually not the same issues. Since every abortion kills an innocent human being, it is morally abhorrent to use the rare cases when abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother as justification for the millions of on demand "convenience" abortions." so yes it is sometimes necassary but we need to talk about more aplicable cases and the morality of abortion to show why it should be widely accepted. Voters if you like me don't trust that source my opponent gave please see (8) an academic paper that goes through economic and medical aspects of abortion and I found quite interesting.
Now even if the abortion wasn't medically necessary it would still be morally acceptable. My opponent has consistently been using emotionally charged and aggravating words like murder and killing suggesting that I am an uncaring inhuman person that condones the murder of others, to which I say that has no place in a civil debate and I wish her and all of you to take into account the quality VS the quantity of life. If someone wishes to have an abortion they don't wish to have a child this can be for many reasons Psychological trauma that would be experienced if carrying a pregnancy to term, pregnancy caused by rape, predisposed disposition to birth defects a disease, and many other personal or family reasons, all in all when a person wants an abortion they generally won't be able to support, nor ready, or won't love their child as much as they would if they wish to carry the child to term. so generally we could consider their quality of life for both the mother and the child to be diminished. what is the alternative let her abort this child especially in cases of teen pregnancy or rape then later in life if they choose to have a child it will be because they chose not because contraception failed or someone decided to abuse their bodies let them decide when they are ready to become a parent because that is a big step that not everyone is ready to take at 15 at 20 at 30 because these are people, and I will give them the courtesy you haven't given me, I will treat them as fully rational and capable human beings. Leaving the status quo as is will increase the quality of life and the quantity of life will remain the same, following my opponents self-righteous high horse will only lead to a drop in quality of life increase in illegal and unsafe abortion and more inhuman and unloving treatment of people.
Speaking of people you have taken the stance I expected that hard and fast life begins at conception. Now this comes with a whole host of problems as it not clearly human as you have asserted with your only evidence being that it has human DNA and it is living. Now Does this mean that human skin cells that we shave off daily should be considered murder because they are alive with human DNA, course not? Does that mean a Parasite in your body feeding off your life force using your cells and DNA to further itself should be given the same human rights as me or you, No. From Contraception this 'baby'( a term you are mis-using as this only refers to a human being after birth) , So from contraception this Fetus is living off the mother and without her contact 24/7 would naturally die/be aborted so considering the loss of that life as any more than the loss of an animal or microbe is fallacious.
Now your argument you said you were looking at the morality of abortion but instead you just questioned the morality of the people you oppressing. talking about their practical reasons I will look on the true morality of this act and even give you an example. starting with the example imagine you find yourself after going to bed waking up in a hospital hooked up to Katy Perry who is using your kidneys to keep herself alive. Katy's manager found out she had a fatal kidney failure and looked around found you drugged you and hooked you up to her to save her life. Now when you wake up the doctors tell you that "we are so sorry for what this manager has done to you and if we had known we would never have condoned it. still, it happened and your hooked up to Katy now and we cant unhook you without killing her but it's only for nine months and you only feel a little worse supporting 2 circulatory systems through your kidneys for those nine months because after then she will be fully healed and able to continue her life as normal." now I'm sure it would be a great kindness to stay hooked up to Katy for that time and she would much appreciate it but are you obliged to? No, and what if instead, the doctor said 18 years you had to stay hooked up because remember all people have a right to life and Katy coma'd out with little to no brain function at the moment is a person too. Granted you do have a right to choose what happens to your body but the right to life is greater so we don't care about your right to decide what happens to your body because we are forcing you to stayed hooked up to her. I'm sure everyone can see how outrageous the doctor sounds in this example. In this case, my opponent is the doctors Katy Perry is the fetus and you are the person who understandably would want an abortion and Katy's Manager is your rapist. so an argument that sounded plausible in my opponents theory soon falls apart when placed in a real life example. One of philosophical nature in order to get you thinking
I would like to round out with some other comments I wish to pick up on
"motherly instincts that should be present in the mother too" not always many people don't consider themselves mothers or fathers anywhere near ready so you pushing them into such a position telling them how they should think feel and act are overbearing and not respecting them as human beings with their own complex emotions and feelings.
"We look down on murder of older humans" Quite the contrary we Euthanize the elderly at their consent or the concent of the family member they have allowed their wishes to be overseen.
"I would question their humanity...why were they pregnant in the first place?" you are assuming things about these people you have no right to assume most people who wish to have an abortion are those who are victims of rape or whom have been using contraception and it failed. this is not their fault and dehumanizing them is abhorred because these are people not murderers but people.
"who are born already, growing up in poverty?" but not all parents wish that upon their child and these people have hope that they will be in a better place in the future in which they can support a family of the best of their abilities and you denying them that hope is the only crime i can see here.
"Who are you to presume that a rape victim even wants an abortion" i am the one not denying them the option of having it. I am assuming them capable human beings able to make their own decisions unlike you who wish to take all their free will away so they will follow your ideological values that they may or may not align with.
"How far have we come since then?" this was asked when looking back at abortions when they were illegal. now since then we have developed safer practices more humane practices like that of the medicinal abortion i showed in my model making the industry of abortion far safer than it used to be.
sources 10 and 11 are there as the general validity of my claims and are an interesting read at the philosophical side of this debate that I think all veiwers should read if they have time. they are in pdf format as I have downloaded them so have also provided the original books they are from to help you find them is the link doesnt work.
10) file:///C:/Users/michael/Downloads/Abortion_Maternal-Fetal_Relations.pdf -- Abortion Maternal-Fetal Relations the beginning and end of life
11) file:///C:/Users/michael/Downloads/Thomson.pdf -- J.J. Thomson Philosophy...
First I wish to address your accusation that I am using emotional and aggravating words, like "murder". If you find this an issue, don't return it by accusing me of oppressing people.
Quickly on the topic of the abortionfacts.com website, I did research its reliability and unfortunately it is outdated, so using it as justification for abortion being necessary even rarely is merely showing that you haven't researched the website itself and are just judging it by its emotive langauge. It is biased, though not thereby incorrect, and the studies used are out of date, but not inaccurate. (1).
Most of your argument now revolves around the mother"s choice, to sum it up. You are now saying that should a woman decide whether she does not want a baby/ foetus, she is within her rights to terminate it. I'll quickly define "foetus" so we both know what we are talking about: "An unborn/unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception." Just so you know that it is officially considered human and we have no further argument on that point. You seem to feel as though I have targeted you personally when I refer to abortion as murder, but while I still hold fast to that statement, I'm sure you mean well despite your delusions about what "quality of life" really means. Your argument for abortion being allowed is that a woman is somehow incredibly fragile (we are fairly strong for the most part, actually) and may suffer "Psychological trauma that would be experienced if carrying a pregnancy to term, pregnancy caused by rape, predisposed disposition to birth defects a disease, and many other personal or family reasons, all in all when a person wants an abortion they generally won't be able to support, nor ready, or won't love their child as much as they would if they wish to carry the child to term."
Childbirth is not a situation that ruins lives, indeed, it is the reason you and I are alive. In fact, my mother was 42 when she gave birth to me, an age where the chances for a baby having Down syndrome can be as high as about 1 in 40, but was I aborted? No, and I'm perfectly normal. Also, my mother has not suffered any side effects from having four children. It's a normal part of sexual reproduction and hardly psychologically damaging. Women are not traumatised by giving birth, it is natural and doctors are able to provide painkillers and medical care on hand. I wish to see a citation for this claim of yours. I've covered the rape pregnancy situation already, though you may not have cared to read it. Also birth defects are no reason to abort- if the child is so defective it cannot survive, often it is miscarried (in certain cases of trisomy, for example). If the defect is like Down-syndrome or Zika, then you need to meet children who suffer those conditions. They are beautiful souls and deserve life as much as a healthy child. To kill a child for the sake of its condition is not mercy but selfishness- why do they deserve less of a chance than anyone else? As for support, there is no lack of government support for single mothers- my own sister is a single mother and despite her single-parent employment position she is not homeless or starving or lacking in necessities. And tell me something- if someone aborts their child because they think they won't love it enough, how is it helping? That child won't always be a child. It will have a life of its own, and its mother won't be the only one in its life to supply love. You're thinking of this in a close minded way. Look at the bigger picture: this is the life of a child we are discussing. You may argue, as many before you have, that it does not develop human qualities until later, but those human qualities are still there, in its very DNA, from the moment that it came into being.
I wish to present the Argument From Substantial Identity:
1. You and I are intrinsically valuable (in the sense that makes us subjects of rights).
2. We are intrinsically valuable because of what we are (what we are essentially).
3. What we are, is each a human, physical organism.
4. Human physical organisms come to be at conception. (A bio- logical proposition: a new and distinct human organism is generated by the fusion of a spermatozoon and an oocyte.)
5. Therefore, what is intrinsically valuable (as a subject of rights) comes to be at conception.
What makes it wrong to kill you or me now would also have been present in the killing of you or me when we existed as adolescents, as toddlers, as infants, but also when we existed as foetuses or embryos. (2).
What has physical development to do with who you are? What acquired characteristic do we gain at some point that makes us valuable between certain points? For example, unborn children, the elderly, the sick/comatose, and those with mental conditions, are often considered to be less human than those who are healthy, already born, and "normal". "Drain on society", "waste of resources", you've probably heard it too. It's a common defense of euthanasia and abortion both. Tell me why the whims of a woman who doesn't think she is able to love her own child enough for it to live well are more important than giving that child the chance to find love itself. And what about women having repeat abortions? How many times can an "accident" happen or a mistake be repeatedly?
Another point- abortion survivors. Have you ever read their stories? How glad they are that they survived, or the ones who had siblings aborted and are hurt by the fact they'll never know their brother or sister? (3,4,5). These are people alive today. Human beings. Are they suffering because their mothers didn't want them, or are they more motivated to make a difference because of it?
Also I wish to address your analogy (poorly put together, I must say). For one, my cousin has had both kidneys removed and he is not hooked up to another human being, he has to manually sort his functions out with a machine. He is also engaged to be married, just as a side point. Kidney problems aren't the end, we've come a bit further than that. Also, an unborn baby is not as physically demanding as an adult, nor would the pregnant mother be confined to a hospital plugged into another person, the baby is inside her and growing. Don't tell me that it's parasitic, or something else non-human. Your analogy is full of flaws. Nine months of carrying a baby around inside you? Elephants have a harder time of it than us- 18-22 months!
Also I'd like you to check out these quotes from abortion doctors (6) may be eye-opening for you.
Yes abortion is safer than it used to be, and used more as contraception now than when illegal. By the time they're 45, at least one in three women will have had one or more abortions. That is a staggering amount of children who will never be born and will never know the joy life brings, whether poor or rich or somewhere in between.
My closing statement is this: I have two sisters who have been in a situation where they could choose abortion or carry the pregnancy to term. There was no pressure on them save that they might not want the child. One of them chose abortion. One did not. One of them would have had a little girl about 8 years old, she lives with a partner 20 years older than her, drinks excessively, has no children nor does her partner want children, and she is afraid that we, her family, will judge her if she comes home, despite the support we have shown and how much we just want her home. The other one has a boy of 8 years old, is living with him and he is in school while she works. They are happy, he is in Boy Scouts, he is learning karate, he loves superheroes and he is an awesome kid, father figure or not. I wish I'd had the chance to meet my niece. But I won't get that. Abortion doesn't just affect the mother and the child. Take that into your considerations, my friend.
To potential voters, I am going to ask you not to vote on your biases. Please take into account all you have read in this debate, and decide anew which side you think is right, morally, medically, humanely, and scientifically.
To my opponent, I am going to say one more thing- emotive language does not make an argument invalid or biased. I have reviewed both sides of this topic and have come down on the side that I believe is morally and scientifically right. There is more I would say but it will keep. Good luck with your last rebuttal. It's been great debating with you.
To address your argument while furthering my own at the same time and work my way through using quotes when necessary.
you are using emotive words to trigger an emotive response in people as they read it so they will disregard facts and logical analysis whereas I have only stated that you are oppressing people by taking away their right of free will which is oppression in one case there is a definite the other in ambiguous so please refrain from such partial language.
Nice to see we agree that your sources are inaccurate because andy study that is bias will portray the results in such a way as to create a bias even when no such thing exists this is why we have peer reviews in academia to which your sources would/have all failed even the source you use to defend abortion"facts".com has a trust metre underneath this person which is quite low.
to say my argument revolves around a mother's choice, you have mischaracterized my argument one aspect was mother's free will and the quality of her life another was the life of something that is unborn another was health another what the ethics of terminating a pregnancy.
to say "we have no further argument on that point." is very patronising as yes there is an argument there as to whether or not the fetus is considered human life because of all the reasons I have covered and you have just ignored. also in your definition fetus is "more than eight weeks after conception." so what about before then are you backing off your baseless assertion that something is human life from conception.
I don't feel targeted by you using murder just call it what it is, terminating a pregnancy, without trying to trick our voters.
"we are fairly strong for the most part" I too believe woman are very strong but getting pregnant can knock anyone's psyche. Also just because the majority is strong doesn't mean that those who don't fit your generalisation must suffer because of what you are forcing them to do.
your anecdotal example of your life is one circumstance of many and holds no weight here because
A) your mother assumably had had children before you so was ready for parenthood and knew its struggles
B) If she wanted to risk you haveing DS that was her choice but to someone who doesn't wish to roll the dice ill give them the choice to say no
C) your mother again is one example of someone who was ready for having children and this is the state I want all mothers to be in before they have a child. I want them to be prepared for the workload of having a child so if they are not ready I want to give them the opportunity to say no and wait till they are ready.
D) your sister is another anecdote and for every one person that is like your sister there is someone like Alanna(12)
E) Government support in your country of origin might be good but in all countries, it is not as flash so "the government will save you" is not a proper reason and your anecdote doesn't support you in the slightest.
"Women are not traumatised by giving birth" you should say most "Women are not traumatised by giving birth" because for those who are, despite what you say they do exist and I will treat them with the respect they deserve, those who deserve the right to not be forced into trauma as to follow your flawed absolutist "morality"
"its mother won't be the only one in its life to supply love" the relationship between a child and his/her mother is infinitely important especially in the first few years as this is when the child is developing their understanding of love and social constructs. So no mothers are not the only supply of love but they are by far the most important and giving the chance for a mother to get to a point where she will love and neuter this child above all else is a point I wish to get these mothers too. I am not closing my mind but trying to open yours.,
Now your philosophical argument of Substantial Identity: I have problems with premise 2 and 4.
starting with 4 you have created an equivalence problem for yourself by equating us or assumably a member of society whom adds to that society in some form or other to that of a zygote which doesn't have human for or thought functions is lacking in all things that make us "intrinsically valuable" So unless you are claiming that just because it shares DNA it is valuable I refer you back to organisms that we don't discern with rights because if we did we would be able to function.
Premise 2 somewhat links onto what i had started talking about where just because something is "human" doesn't mean it has value as yes most human beings are valuable but that is because we work to further society or keep it running we don't passively sit by while society keeps us going or we don't push against the society with no rightful cause. humans who do push against society are called criminals and yes this is a bit tangental from our argument about zygotes but to say that every human deserves rights as though we already do this is a fallacy. also good to see you found a nice academic paper and were able to copy and paste (2)
"repeat abortions? How many times can an "accident" happen" mistakes and accidents are based on chances and if one person is unlucky birth control can fail, sometimes multiple times, this is a weak justification as well as these are just a small majority and taking the right away from all women based on this minority is unjust.
(3,4,5). these are just case studies and a couple of case studies won't represent the massive population of unwanted children you are forcing into the world that is already struggling, and you are forcing the people who are struggling to bear the burden even if they did all in their power to have birth control you will stop them at this arbitrary point because you feel like is wrong. that's all it is. you are forcing people to do what you feel is best. what you feel is right. but these are people too with their own beliefs and their own values who more often than not can make rational choices and that's what I will give them. Free Will, choice.
my thought experiment is exactly that a thought experiment, not an analogy as you tried to make it because you refuse to engage with the argument present. From that, i can only assume one thing that to thought behind it was all too real and you could only attack the circumstances, not the idea. an idea that shows pro-life campaigners like you that your all for pro-life but free will be damned the world must bow to your self-righteous view. I won't say its parasitic but I will say that without the mother what would happen to this "life" and who are you to force the mother to stay hooked up.
My closing statement: I will not try to convince you with emotive language and anecdotes but I have only shown you the facts. Abortion is safer than ever now it's legal and we are saving lives by keeping it that way not losing them to something they were going to do anyway. The quality of life will only decrease for not only the child but the mother and all those around them if your view is allowed to be pressed upon a nation or even the world. People are not haveing an abortion and then never having children so why not let them get to a place where they are ready for such a commitment as having a child. Pushing your viewpoint onto someone else is considered wrong so please voters this case cannot stand
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.