Debate Rounds (3)
Think of the instances where the pregnancy is killing the murder; is it murder then? Or how about an adolescent rape victim terminating the pregnancy; is it murder then?
Some people argue the use of "adoption clinics" in place of abortion clinics, by which will only bring an increase to child suicide rates through this concept; people will adopt for only the money and nothing more. I know what it's like to live in a house where you are not loved and are only there for the money; it's not the quality of life that will raise productive members of society. Do not be fooled by the concept of adoption!
Imagine the psychological downfalls of the adopted children, especially in the case where they are not loved by their adoptees. Why would you want to put a child through that kind of life? A life of infinite torment, abuse, and more than likely neglect?
I understand that some people want to impose their religious views on this topic, which is acceptable for your family values by all means. However, if you are somebody who also supports life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as well; is it not hypocritical for you to want to ban abortion?
In the concept of life, it can be argued that the fetus is alive at conception. Again, life for the baby is not guaranteed until after birth; so, realistically it is nothing more buy a physiological parasite up until birth. However, if you force people to give birth to children they do not want, you are forcing those people (especially the child and those economically unstable) to live a lesser quality of life and, thus, unable to pursue what makes them happy. You are especially robbing them of the ability to birth a child they are well prepared for, when they are too obstructed in taking care of the child they were forced to have.
I also argue that the right to chose is a liberty. I am perfectly fine with people deciding to not abort for whatever reason, but by what means are you privileged enough to decide for the mothers and fathers that are not prepared to birth a child? People have the right to decide for themselves, I do not find it at all American to try to impose your own views to obstruct the freedom of others; which is exactly what Anti-Abortion movements intend to do!
Instigators primary argument is abortion isn't murder because life isn't guaranteed until after birth. My primary argument will be that is an invalid reason on which to conclude abortion is not murder. Three reasons I offer in support of this belief:
1. Pro contradicts the claim abortion is not murder by implying it might be if not performed by a medical professional
2. Life is never really guaranteed. For one the only thing guaranteed in life is death. Which is of course the end of a life.
3. Just are laws differ on when infancy ends they differ on the rights and protections given to the fetus. Infant by the way means minor.
I shall stand by my argument that abortion is not murder. When it is performed by a medical professional, the abortion is done through civil means. For example, Methotrexate is prescribed to separate the fetus from the placenta within the uterus, a much less barbaric method than what the Ancient Greeks used; which ranged from having the mothers "shake themselves to abortion" via riding the horse, to carrying heavy weights.
I do agree with my opponent that life is never really guaranteed, but the ability to live it is after birth.
I respectfully correct my opponent by quoting the definition of "Infant" by Merriam Webster;
: a child in the first period of life
: a person who is not of full age
A fetus and an infant are two different things. I quote the definition of "fetus" by Merriam Webster;
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth
In the question of law, I bring mention that parents have full legal jurisdiction on "minors" during the first eighteen years of the born child's life. During this time, the child slowly grows to advocate for itself with his/her own developed thoughts and opinions; as we all have gone through during our early stages of life. This all occurs when the child is /outside/ the mother's body; to satirically put it, I do not find it possible for a fetus to be able to argue against its termination when it has not the developed cognitive ability to do so.
Thus far, I criticize my opponents argument with the parallelism of an advocate for "parasite rights." It is what the fetus is to the mother; it takes away her nutrients, takes up space in her body... All for its own survival. No different than that of any traditional parasite that kills many human beings annually, with the exception of the high possibility (lesser in third world country) of the mother surviving the birth of the baby.
What matters most, is if the mother wanted the baby or not. Again, I argue; by what means should people decide what a couple should do with their pregnancy? How exactly, is it not an obstruction to their liberty? I ask my opponent to answer these questions, and look forward to his reply.
1. It is done by medical professionals. Lets say a teenage rape victim has aborted the baby that resulted. Now the abortion wasn't done by medical professionals and wasn't as humanely as those Pro supports. The woman will die for her crime. When asked to justify it we just say-- the needle is far more humane than what used to be done and the execution will be carried out by a professional staff. Of course there are lots of other reasons, better reasons why the woman shouldn't be put to death or shouldn't even be punished at all. Because it is humane-- it's a better argument for the abortion but in either case it doesn't make it right.
2.Abortion is okay because fetuses are no different than parasites. Actually this is strangely true. Pro explicitly states abortions are acceptable when done by medical professionals using humane means. The slaughter of animals is perfectly acceptable when done by medical and scientific researchers; or by butchers as long as they use humane means. Though would most people put a human fetus on the same level of a monkey, a mouse, a rat, or a cow. As for the parasites Pro was probably referencing-- those things people want to get rid of-- not every woman wants to get rid of her unborn baby
3. Abortion is okay because a parent has total control over his or her children to the age of 18. There are a number of exceptions to this including situations where the upper age limit extends to 21; and as Pro explicitly mentions-- the fetus-- the unborn baby. Which means to use Pro's logic the mother doesn't have total legal control over the unborn baby. Even if she does-- we should not a the law restricts the absolute control a parent has over a minor child-- including a prohibition on murder. Since it only covers the time after birth-- the prohibition against murder doesn't apply to the unborn. So I guess it is alright to slaughter the unborn. Something is illogical about that
The first instance either comes from a third world country or some place with severe human rights issues. Regardless, I agree with Con with the statement that a woman shouldn't be put to death or even be punished at all for aborting a child. However, making abortion against the law would punish the rape victims by forcing them to suffer a full nine months of labor with a child she doesn't want or cannot have, and punish the child by putting them through a neglected life due to being unwanted and abused by the adoption industry.
The second instance deviates the topic of this debate; this is of human abortion, not animal rights. A fetus is, again, a parasite - it is not intelligent nor is it capable of being even remotely as valuable as a developed human being. In fact, terminated fetuses can be of great use to the living; especially in stem cell research!
The third instance, again assumes that abortion is murder. It is murder when a mother kills a born baby, but not when she aborts an unborn child. A fetus is not guaranteed life until after birth, it is fully dependent on the mother for survival (hence I state it is a parasite). With your logic, you also mean that the mother has murdered her child if she naturally aborts or, in some cases, suffers some form of TRAUMA to the point where the fetus dies.
By what means does your argument even sound remotely logical? Why should people with sensitive emotions be able to decide what another person does to benefit her life, or prevent a major hazard?
I wouldn't equate a human fetus, an unborn baby in many people's minds and beliefs to the lowest form of animal and plant
Look I agree with you on the broader topic of abortion rights. I just don't think you used very good arguments in some places.
Just curious. Did you have a bad experience with adoptions. Don't have to answer of course but you seemed to make a strong point of that.
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.