Is Abortion Only Acceptable Under Extreme Circumstances (For Example Severe Birth Defects)
Debate Rounds (5)
My Opponent May Argue That Abortion Is Always Acceptable Or Never Acceptable.
I Will Argue That Abortion Is Only Acceptable In Extreme Circumstances.
Abortion- Any Medical Procedure Designed To Terminate A Fetus Before Birth
Pro-Choice Advocates Would Have You Believe That Because The Fetus Is Developing In The Woman's Body It's Her Choice What Happens To It. You Must However Consider Everyone Else It Effects,
The Father, The Grandparents, And Perhaps Most Important Of All, The Fetus Itself.
Another Aspect To Consider Is Responsibility, Hundreds If Not Thousands Of Contraceptives Are On The Market
If She Didn't Use Them It's Her Fault. She Needs To Take Responsibility For Her Decision, Not Kill A Developing Baby.
I Am Not However A Gung-Ho "Its Her Responsibility To God To Raise That Baby" Person.
The Baby Can Easily Be Put Up For Adoption After It Is Born.
There Are Thousands Of Loving Couples That For Whatever Reason Can't Have Children.
To Move To Another Topic, There Are Certain Situations Where Abortion Should Be Allowed.
For Example If The Baby Will Be Born Horribly Deformed And Is Likely To Die The Mother Should Be Allowed To Make It So Her Child Won't Suffer. Another Such Case Would Be If The Mother Is Likely To Die During The Pregnancy ( I Feel This Way Because The Mother Is A Person While The Fetus Is Just A Potential Person)
To Summarize I Belive That In Extreme Cases Abortion Should Be Allowed However In Cases Where Its Just More Convenient To Do It Should Be Illegal.
I Look Forward To Con's Argument.
Yes, contraception can help prevent pregnancy but it is not absolute. A woman's choice overrides the effects her choice will have on others, because most choices people make affect others and yet we are still free to make them. Adoption still forces a woman to be pregnant for almost 10 months which is enough time to throw her life off course. It still controls her body against her will and forces a process upon her that she might not want. Sex is a mutual decision but the consequence of pregnancy falls only upon the woman, which is why the choice falls upon her as well.
To Summarize My Opening Argument A Fetus's Right To Life Is Absolute Except In Cases Where
The Fetus Is Likely To Die Anyway, The Mother's Life Is In Danger Or In Cases Of Rape.
A Fetus's Right To Live Triumphs A Woman's Right To Be In Control Of Her Body Because It Is Partially Her Fault That She Is Pregnant. This Is Not True In Cases Of Rape As It Is Not Her Fault That She Is Pregnant And She Can Do What She Wishes. Con Argues That The Mothers Choice Is More Important Than The Fetus's Life Because The Fetus Can Live Independently. So Should People On Life Support Be Regarded As Sub-Human? No, Because They Are Still People.
They Same Should Be True For A Fetus. Con Says That Denying Abortion ( Even When The Child Is Put Up For Adoption)
Is Forcing A Process That She Might Not Want On Her. It Shouldn't Matter What She Wants, She And The Father Signed Up To Be Biological Parents When They Had Unprotected Sex ( I Say This Biological Because They Don't Necessarily Have To Keep The Baby). Yes They Consequences Of Pregnancy Fall Only On Women Because That's How Human Anatomy Works, Making That Argument Makes No Sense. The Truth Is The End Result Of Pregnancy And Therefor The Only Result That Matter Is That A Man And A Woman Have A Child That Shares Their DNA.
Pro says I am putting words in his mouth, but I am not, so I will copy and paste his exact quotes and bold them.
A Fetus's Right To Live Triumphs A Woman's Right To Be In Control Of Her Body Because It Is Partially Her Fault That She Is Pregnant.
Being a woman's "fault" she is pregnant does not mean a fetus' rights trumps her rights, so this is an irrelevant point that does not make sense or justify the premise. Pro has not given us a good enough reason to explain why a fetus' rights should trump the mother's rights. Just because her actions resulted in pregnancy does not mean the fetus' rights are more important, or even that the fetus has certain rights at all.
Con Argues That The Mothers Choice Is More Important Than The Fetus's Life Because The Fetus Can Live Independently.
Yes, we must establish qualifiers for determining who has the right to life and when/why. For example animals do not have the right to life. "In short, man is a rational and social animal. No other animals or beings possess this ability to reason, to make conscious choices, to transform their environment in order to prosper, or to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor" [A]. So animals don't have human rights, babies and toddlers don't have full human rights as rational adults, and people in different mental states don't have full rights including fetuses. Just because they are living humans doesn't mean they have the same rights as other humans. We get different rights at different stages in our human development.
So Should People On Life Support Be Regarded As Sub-Human? No, Because They Are Still People.
They Same Should Be True For A Fetus.
Like animals, some people in certain states of development or brain capacity also do not have the right to life, including people on life support or in comas or who are brain damaged [B]. They are not treated as "sub human" but simply have their rights examined in a different context, because they lack the reason or capacity to function as normal people with typical human rights. Fetuses have the potential to become something but so long as they are not in that state, we do not judge things by their capacity to become but rather what they are.
Con Says That Denying Abortion ( Even When The Child Is Put Up For Adoption) Is Forcing A Process That She Might Not Want On Her. It Shouldn't Matter What She Wants, She And The Father Signed Up To Be Biological Parents When They Had Unprotected Sex ( I Say This Biological Because They Don't Necessarily Have To Keep The Baby).
Some people use contraception and still get pregnant. Either way just because someone's actions allowed something to happen does not mean they have to accept it. If someone smokes and gets lung cancer, they still try to get rid of the cancer even though they chose to smoke.
Yes They Consequences Of Pregnancy Fall Only On Women Because That's How Human Anatomy Works, Making That Argument Makes No Sense.
Two parents choose to have sex and one gets pregnant. Yes Pro is correct, it falls on the biology of a woman and therefore it is the woman's choice. This makes his point about the father, grandparents, etc. feelings taken into consideration irrelevant. Because pregnancy affects only the woman's body, it is her choice. She is the one who takes all of the risk in how it affects her body, it could even take her own life. The woman is the one whose body is being used and we do not have the right to control other people's bodies.
1. It Does Make Sense To Say That A Woman's Opinion Does Not Matter In Cases Were The Only Reason For Abortion Is Convenience. It Is Like This Because A Fetus Is A Genetically Unique Human And Thus Deserves The Right To Live And Is Not Trumped By The Woman's Choice Because As Previously Stated It Is Partially The Woman's Fault That She Is Pregnant.
2. Basic Human Rights Are Rights Afforded To All Humans Regardless Of Circumstance.
The Right To Live Or Die By Their Own Choice Is One Of The Most Important.
Abortion Violates This Right In A Fetus. The Argument That It's Like A Family Choosing To Cut Of A Coma Patient Is Non-Applicable Because The Fetus Will Eventually Be Sapient.
3. If We Were Talking About A Woman Choosing Chemotherapy Over Dying Of Cancer I Would Whole-Heartily Agree With You.
However In This Case Since The Options Are To Birth The Unborn Child Or Terminate It And As Already Stated The Child Has The Right Live,She Cannot Terminate The Child Because Of Her Mistake.
4. This Statement Does Not Invalidate My Previous Points As I Simply Meant That The Physical Consequences Of The Pregnancy Fall On The Woman. The Emotional, Mental And Financial Consequences Pregnancy Fall On All Of The Previously Mentioned Affected People.
Children under 21 do not have the right to drink alcohol, even though they will be 21 some day. As I pointed out, fetuses in the early stages cannot live on their own. When they can, they will have the right to life. That is like someone having the right to drink when they turn 21, and not before then just because they will be 21 "some day." Before it is a human fetus, it is a human embryo. Before that, a human zygote and sex cell. Does sperm have the right to life? Is masturbation murder? That sperm could have been part of a human fetus "some day."
I've argued that we cannot make demands on the mother's body through force, but Pro says we can use force because of the woman's "choice" to get pregnant. Most of the time pregnancy is an accidental result of the choice to have sex. If someone gets lung cancer from smoking cigarettes, they made the choice to smoke cigarettes, not the choice to get lung cancer, so they fight lung cancer because it was an unwanted side effect. A poor choice does not mean we can control someone else's body anyway. If you make the choice to do drugs or eat unhealthy, it doesn't mean we can force you to donate a kidney. We do not have control over other people's bodies, even if they make bad choices involving their bodies.
Also can I ask why abortion is okay in the case of extreme birth defects?
PointlessQuestions forfeited this round.
East forfeited this round.
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.