The Instigator
LatinaGirl8894
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Drinking while pregnant is child abuse due to the damagae it causes.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 728 times Debate No: 67847
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

LatinaGirl8894

Pro

Round 1 is acceptance
Rounds 2 & 3 are arguments and rebuttals
Round 4 is rebuttals and conclusion

Lets try this debate again. Comment if you would like this debate.
lannan13

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
LatinaGirl8894

Pro

Physical damage,

"In the United States, prenatal exposure to alcohol is the most common cause of birth defects. Exposure to alcohol during pregnancy causes damage to the brain and affects the child's behavior, these effects can be prevented by 100 percent." (1)

Drinking while you are still pregnant is never a good choice. You are causing your baby untold harm before they are even born. There are thousands of babies born every year that are already addicted to alcohol. The smallest amount of alcohol can do permanent damage to the baby.

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is one of the biggest problems you child can face if you drink while you are pregnant. That damage done by this condition can affect your baby for the rest of their life. Conditions can include:

Facial deformities.
Slow and retarded development.
Brain and neurological problems.

Why would you want to subject your baby to this kind of a life just because you wanted to get a drink? The effects of alcohol on a baby"s brain are not reversible. That damage is done and there is nothing you or anybody can do to fix it.

Drinking alcohol can also increase the risk of miscarrying or having a stillborn child. No mother wants to go through the horror of that happening especially if it could have been prevented in the first place.

(1)http://www.aacap.org...
lannan13

Con


Contention 1: Definitions




My opponent has failed to define some key terms for you in this debate, so I will take the initative to due so since these definitions are very key to the debate and determine how things go.



Child Abuse- Child Abuse has been defined as an act, or failure to act, on the part of a parent or caretaker that results in the death, serious physical or emotional harm, Sexual Abuse, or exploitation of a child, or which places the child in an imminent risk of serious harm. ( http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...)



Child- the age span from birth to adolences. (Macmillan Dictionary for Students Macmillan, Pan Ltd. (1981), page 173. Retrieved 2010-7-15)



Now this is key to the debate, because it turns the debate to showing that in order for this to be child abuse the child must already be born in order for it to be concidered a child and hence child abuse. This means that by definition that drinking while pregnant is not child abuse.




Contention 2: Chances of a Zygotes survival.





The chances of the Zygotes original survival is actually pretty slim. The numbers show that 60% of Zygotes do not make it to the first term. "... up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among those women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is about 15-20%." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) Now you are probably asking yourself what in the world does this have to due with this debate as this debate isn't about abortion, but drinking. The relivency is that a large portion of them do not even make it to the first term of of pregnancy goes to show that the chances of getting pregnant is pretty low and that the signifigence is slow as many of the children don't make it to that point and under the resolution drinking even under 1 day after being fertilized would be concidered child abuse which is perposterous concidering that the zygotes have a little chance of even making it to the first term of pregnancy.


Contention 3: Rocks have a greater moral value then that of a fetuas.


Now before you size me up in a straight jacket and put me in the nut house here me out. Here I will take a quote from the Self Identity as Memory, ""This sense of self is critical to our status as persons. In fact, philosophers often use the terms self and person interchangeably: a capacity for self-awareness is necessary for full personhood. One has a sense of self if one is able to entertain first-person thoughts, and if one possesses first-person knowledge."


Handbook of self and identity (pp. 68-90). New York: Guilford Press, 2002 (http://socrates.berkeley.edu...)



Now what that means is that once something is self-aware then it can be concidered a person. A fetus is not a person as it hasn't been born nor does it have the selfawareness. It's because of that the fetus is concidered less than that of a human being. Now as for rocks. Now you see that the rock will always be a rock. Reguardless if it's vandelised, smashed, or even mined for it's ore the rock is still a rock only in a different state of frame. The fetus is not yet a fully functional human and it's because of that the fetus cannot be concidered that greater of a rock, because the fetus has a chance to never advance and become a human, but would die as a fetus. The fetus could become a human, but would then be changing it's state and because it's not staying in it's natural state it is in and it's nature's tendency for things to stay at rest and not change state and if they were to change state then they would be going against they're purpose and meaning which is to stay at rest.


Contention 4: My opponent’s argument’s.


I do agree that these things are true, but the wording of the resolution changes the debate. Due to the wording of the debate she is basically trying to prove that Person A is guility in this situation. Person A is a Gun Factory Woker and helps make guns. Company A (Where Person A works) sells gun made by Person A to Person B, Person B then goes and kills person C. My opponent is trying to prove that Person A killed Person c. The Resolutions terminology states that drinking during pregnancy causes child abuse, but how can it cause child abuse when the fetus is not a child yet? It cannot and thus we can observe that under the resolution that terminology swings the debate into my favor.



I will now pass things back off to my opponent.


Debate Round No. 2
LatinaGirl8894

Pro

"The traditional scientific/medical view is that a fetus becomes a child when it becomes sufficiently complex and well-developed that it can--at least theoretically--survive outside its mother's body, even with lots of medical intervention." (2)

If the fetus still in the womb can survive outside even with help then most of the nation will consider it a child and therefore it can be abused.

In Missouri and 17 other states, the laws recognize a fetus as living at the time of conception.

If you are a living person/ child then you can certainly be harmed. Since all these states consider a fetus to be living then if a mother chooses to drink while pregnant and causes damage to the fetus then it is considered child abuse because they are doing it knowing what is going to happen.

A fetus is well aware of what is going on around them; therefore they do have moral value. As far as I know a rock cannot know what it around it and cannot move or talk so what"s the moral value of a rock? Nothing!

"Studies have found that a fetus can hear sounds, though muffled, at as early as 20 weeks and by the third trimester their hearing is intact. Sonograms show that your baby may turn their head in response to a noise." (1) If your baby can hear you as early as 20 weeks along them that proves they are aware of their surroundings and are alert as can be. On ultra sounds, a fetus can be seen turning their head in response to their parent"s voice. They become familiar with their voices from an early start and will recognize them long after they are born.

(1)http://www.pregnancyandbaby.com...
(2)https://answers.yahoo.com...
lannan13

Con

I cannot post this round due to time restrictions. Please deduct conduct point from me and I'll finish in the next round.
Debate Round No. 3
LatinaGirl8894

Pro

Previous arguments are still valid
lannan13

Con

I thank my opponent for her patient's as I was very sick of the past weekend. I will now attack her case that she presented in Round 3.

As for the first piece of evidence she brings up in her case is by Yahoo answers, but when we click on the link to see that person's sourcing the sourcing is: "old scientist." Who is this old scientist. I wish to know. the fact is that this part can be thrown out as we do not have a name for this person and it's from Yahoo Answers which makes it even less creditable. Secondly, it was Pro's duty to define Child, but since she failed to do so I chose to in Round 2. I defined it and it still stands that a child is a child when it is born up unitl age 14 and this wasn't contested even with what my opponent said in round three. How's this you may ask? It is simply that my opponent says if the fetus can live outside of the mother then it's a child and can be abused and that's correct on the counter of the fetus is outside of the mother and hence has been born and is now a child. The drinking at this point would not affect the child. Drinking while pregnant would not be concidered child abuse as the fetus is not a child yet and it would thus be concidered de facto.

It doesn't matter how many states recognize the fetus as living. They do not recognize the fetus as a child though. Completely different topics.

My opponent also drops my second contention proving that there is little chance for the fetus to actually make it to the third trimester and this would mean that if the resolution is passed then everything that could cause a miscarriage would be concidered child abuse. It is unlikely and invalid for such a course of actions to occur here.

Though the fetus may be awhere of its surroundings it is still has less moral value then a rock, because the fetus will change and will cease to be a fetus and has no potential. A rock, however, will always be a rock and holds a great amount of potential as it can hold a great deal of minerals and be used for so many things. The fetus has a great chance of dying and thus has less moral value than that of a rock.

With that I thank you for this debate and urge you to Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Oh, BLAH, I know exactly what it means, but there are other harsher things and fun ways that I'm going to go about this that exclude trolling.
Posted by BLAHthedebator 1 year ago
BLAHthedebator
I think that the part where the resolution says "due to the damage it causes" is con's saving grace. But I'm not gonna say why.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Challenge accepted.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
LatinaGirl8894lannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded conduct to Pro. Arguments go to Con because Pro couldn't show that damage always happens to a fetus. Since the resolution didn't equivocate, Pro had to show drinking while pregnant is always abuse. She did not do that.
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 1 year ago
BLAHthedebator
LatinaGirl8894lannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con requested a deduction of conduct points from him due to a round forfeiture caused by time restrictions. S&G - Con. Pro made many spelling and grammar errors that contributed to the clarity of her arguments. Arguments - Con. A fetus is called living at the time of conception, not a living person or human. It is only considered a human when it takes its first breath. Con proves this, thus negating the resolution. Pro tries to refute this by saying that fetuses are sentient/ well aware of their surroundings, but a group of cells with a brain and organs isn't enough to call human cells a human. Therefore Con wins. Sources - Tied. Both sides utilized adequately reliable sources.