The Instigator
Andromeda_Z
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
ryan_thomas
Con (against)
Losing
19 Points

Late Term 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 8 votes the winner is...
Andromeda_Z
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/1/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,799 times Debate No: 18145
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (8)

 

Andromeda_Z

Pro

Definition
Late Term Abortion - Any abortion performed after the fetus would be viable if delivered to a non-specialized health center. [1]

Fetus - The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. [2]

Argument

People own themselves. As a woman owns herself, she would also own any fetuses she may be carrying. The fetus resides in her body and uses resources (nutrients, oxygen, etc) that she provides. In some cases, the fetus is unwelcome in the mothers' body. She owns her body, so she has the right to do as she wishes with it. If she desires, she can, at ay time, remove something from it. In the case of late term abortion, it is a fetus that is being removed.

Sources
[1] http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... term abortion
[2] http://www.medterms.com...
ryan_thomas

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate, and I would like to wish her luck.

I accept the defitions, but I would like to expand on how these procedures are performed and how developed the fetus is.


How the procedure is performed:

This procedure is performed after the 20th week of gestation [1]. It begins by the abortionist grabbing the legs of the fetus with their forceps and pulling it into the birth canal, and then the abortionist delivers all of the fetus but its head. Next the abortionist jams a pair of scissors into the back of the fetus's head and opens them to expand the hole, and then the scissors are removed and the abortionist sucks the fetus's brains out and delivers the head [2].


Refutation

My opponent's argument is based on the fact that the fetus is in the woman's body and the woman might not want the fetus there, and the woman has the right to remove it if she wants too. This is not right for a number reasons including the fact that the woman took the chance of getting pregnant and the fetus is there because she made that decision to have sex. Also, if she really did not want the baby she would have had a abortion in the earlier stages of pregnancy when the fetus could not feel or was almost fully developed. since women wait till 20 weeks they should just be made to wait till the birth of the baby.


My argument

In this debate I will be showing why Late-term abortions (also known as partial birth abortions) are bad and should be illegal. My argument will consist of 3 arguments in which I will prove this.


Contention 1: The procedure itself is too inhumane.

The procedure is no doubt barbaric. The abortionist forces all of the poor fetus's body out but it's head, and then rips a hole in the back of it's head and sucks it's brains out. It's illegal for us to do this to our criminals on death row and it should be illegal for this to be done to a unborn human.

Contention 2: It is not necessary.

If a woman can go through labor of most of the live fetus, and then fully deliver a dead baby then she might as well fully deliver it alive and let the baby live. Why should the baby needlessly die?

Contention 3: Health risks

A very big problem with late-term abortions is that they cause very serious health risks to the mother. It increases the risks of cervical incompetence in women, which would make it difficult for them to carry another pregnancy to term. There is also a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child’s skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could result in severe bleeding, brings with it threat of shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death [3]. There are many health problems that can occur from these procedures and making them illegal make sure none of the women get hurt.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there is no need for late term abortions since if the women did not want to be pregnant then they would have used contraceptives or abstinence, and the fact that there are abortions available in the earlier terms of pregnancy.

Vote Con!

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://www.pregnantpause.org...

[3] http://www.bdfund.org...



Debate Round No. 1
Andromeda_Z

Pro

Defense

"My opponent's argument is based on the fact that the fetus is in the woman's body and the woman might not want the fetus there, and the woman has the right to remove it if she wants too."
Yes, my case is based on property rights.

"This is not right for a number reasons including the fact that the woman took the chance of getting pregnant and the fetus is there because she made that decision to have sex."
She made the decision to have sex, not to have a baby. Even if she did want a baby, and then changed her mind, her property rights still apply. This does nothing to refute my argument.

"Also, if she really did not want the baby she would have had a abortion in the earlier stages of pregnancy when the fetus could not feel or was almost fully developed."
In many cases, the woman did not know she was pregnant, was unable to arrange an abortion earlier in the pregnancy, was afraid to tell her partner or parents. [1] It's not as simple as you imply.

"since women wait till 20 weeks they should just be made to wait till the birth of the baby."
If you wish to make the argument that property rights should be denied because of timing, then do so, but this assertion does nothing to refute my argument.

Rebuttal

1.
"The procedure itself is too inhumane." "The procedure is no doubt barbaric."
How do we draw lines about what is humane, and where is it drawn? What you may view as barbaric, another may view s perfectly acceptable, and vice versa. When making decisions about what is to be allowed and what isn't, subjective descriptions such as "barbaric" should not be a deciding factor.

"It's illegal for us to do this to our criminals on death row and it should be illegal for this to be done to a unborn human."
It's not possible to do this to criminals on death row, they are already born. Even if it was, that is not a reason to make late term abortion illegal. Criminals on death row are completely unrelated to the topic.

2.
"If a woman can go through labor of most of the live fetus, and then fully deliver a dead baby then she might as well fully deliver it alive and let the baby live. Why should the baby needlessly die?"
Why should she be forced to let it live? The fact that it's not necessary doesn't mean it should be illegal, there are many unnecessary things we do that are (and should be) legal. This debate itself is unnecessary.

3.
"There are many health problems that can occur from these procedures and making them illegal make sure none of the women get hurt."
Provided the woman is the one being harmed (and not you), you have no basis on which to make this decision for her. It isn't you who would be harmed by her decision. Depending on her situation, the benefits may outweigh the health risks.


Sources
[1] Page 7 of http://www.chapter14.net...
ryan_thomas

Con

Refutation

She doesn't have to keep the baby, she can place it up for adoption. She chose to have sex know very well that she could have used controceptives to prevent pregnancy. A woman who does this and then goes through the pregnancy for 22 weeks is obviously not going to be hurt by delivering the baby, but the baby will be hurt obviously so by keeping it illegal both the baby and the mother are happy. A woman's property rights are no match to rights to life.

Again, a woman who is able to keep a pregnancy for that long will not be hurt from going through the rest of the pregnancy. Afterwhich, she is free too put it up for adoption.

All in all, a woman's property rights are not a sufficient reason to deny someone elses right to life.

Defense




1)ponent does not get my analogy so I will explain it for her. We will not suck the brains out of a person who has killed ten people, so why should it be allowed to suck the brains out of a fetus who has done nothing wrong.

2)better question to ask is 'Why should the mother be allowed to kill something that does not hurt her in a horrible fashion?' The fetus is there because the mother let it get there and let it stay there for 22 weeks. The fetus has done nothing worthy of being killed, and it has intrinsic value. Therefore, she should not be allowed to kill it but rather give it away.

3) The woman is a valuable member to society, and therefore it is the states job to make sure that society fuctions perfectly. A innocent life and the life of a valuable member of society is a perfect basis for not legalizing partial-birth abortion.




Debate Round No. 2
Andromeda_Z

Pro

Defense

"She doesn't have to keep the baby, she can place it up for adoption."
I never said she shouldn't have the choice of adoption or keeping the baby, my argument is that late term abortion should also be an option.

"She chose to have sex know very well that she could have used controceptives to prevent pregnancy."
Contraceptives don't always work. You can use birth control pills and condoms, and still get pregnant.

"A woman who does this and then goes through the pregnancy for 22 weeks is obviously not going to be hurt by delivering the baby, but the baby will be hurt obviously so by keeping it illegal both the baby and the mother are happy."
No, she will not be hurt by delivering the baby. But why should she be forced to? The fetus's property rights should not be placed above those of the mother, especially because it is using the mother's resources.

"A woman's property rights are no match to rights to life."
If we're going to involve the right to life, then it's reasonable to expect that the same rights are conferred to the mother. She has the right to do what she wishes with her life, and her body. Your sense of what is moral or right shouldn't have anything to do with it, because that's your life.

Rebuttal

1.
"We will not suck the brains out of a person who has killed ten people, so why should it be allowed to suck the brains out of a fetus who has done nothing wrong"
You are basing this analogy on your morals. Regardless of how many people agree with them, it does not justify restricting the liberties of those who do not.

2.
"better question to ask is 'Why should the mother be allowed to kill something that does not hurt her in a horrible fashion?'"
Maybe it does hurt her in a horrible fashion. You can't quantify such subjective things as hurt and pain, she may be extremely upset because she's pregnant and her family refuses to accept her, or something. Unless you can reliably put yourself in her head and interpret her experiences exactly as she does, you are not qualified to make the statement that it does not hurt her, and you are also unable to make laws based on such statements.

"The fetus is there because the mother let it get there and let it stay there for 22 weeks."
I have already mentioned circumstances in which the mother would reasonably be unable to get an abortion earlier in the pregnancy, which you have not refuted. Late term abortions don't necessarily happen simply because the mother wants to have a late term abortion.

"The fetus has done nothing worthy of being killed, and it has intrinsic value. Therefore, she should not be allowed to kill it but rather give it away."
It does not have intrinsic value, there are very few things a baby can do, and none of them particularly useful. Fetuses can't do anything. If anything, it has intrinsic potential, and that potential may never be realized even if it were to live. You advocate restricting a woman's rights based on a possibility.

3.

"The woman is a valuable member to society,"
Her first priority and responsibility is herself an her own well-being. She is an individual first, and a member of society second.

"and therefore it is the states job to make sure that society fuctions perfectly."
That doesn't follow from the earlier part of the statement. What is it about that woman being "a valuable member to society" that makes it the state's responsibility to ensure the perfect function of society?

Also, you have not demonstrated that a perfectly-functioning society is possible, that it is the state's responsibility, or that it cannot involve any late term abortions. This is really just an assertion.

"A innocent life and the life of a valuable member of society is a perfect basis for not legalizing partial-birth abortion."
The fetus is not innocent; it is in someone else's body using their resources. If I were to break into your house and steal your food, you would understandably want me out. You would also be justified in using force to accomplish that. The same principle applies in abortions.

The fetus also fails to fit the description of a valuable member of society, in that it contributes nothing. Rather, it is the woman who contributes to society. As she is the one contributing to society, it would make sense that her rights should be the ones protected by society.
ryan_thomas

Con

Rebuttal

Lateterm-abortion should not be legal since their are better alternatives that don't waste life, such as adoption, abstinence, birth control, condoms, the day after pill, and many other controceptives. When there is this many ways of preventing pregnancy in the first place and when there is this many alternatives to killing, why should killing another living breathing unborn baby be a choice?

There are many other controceptives to choose from, and are cheap. However, in the case that contoceptives do not work, the mother does not have to keep the baby as long as 22 weeks when it can feel, when it can think, when the only thing that is seperating it from being considered a full person is it's location. If a mother did not want the baby she would have used better crotroceptives such as Praneem [1], which is way more effective then the average birth control pills and condoms, and all these can be used at once to effectivelly prevent pregnancy.

Like I have already stated, since the woman was given so many alternatives and also kept the baby for 22 weeks. The women should think about that before having unprotected sex. Every action that we all make have consequences, and pregnancy is the consequence for unprotected sex. The fetus should not be the one that pays the price for his so-called mother's mistake.

It is not my moral values that decide on whether a baby has the right to life or not, it is the government's. If a murderer kills a pregnant woman he is charged with two murders the woman's life and the baby's life. [2] If the baby has no right to life then why is there punishments against killing them? Because the baby does have rights. Therefore, if it is against the law to kill the unborn and not be the mother, then it should be illegal for the mother to do this also.

Defense

1) There is two things wrong with this. The first is that we live in a democracy, so if the majority of people do not like late-term abortion (which they agree with me), then it should stay illegal. Also, How does the fact that the mother practically invites the baby into her womb, and then waiting 22 weeks in which she is fully pregnant, then knowing that she could very easily put the baby up for adoption but would rather kill it justify giving a women to have her baby's brains sucked out? It doesn't, women already have plenty of choices, that will allow her and the baby to live their lives to the fullest.

2) In the case that this is true and her family wont accept her, this does not make late-term abortion just. the damage would have already been done, and going through with the pregnancy and puting the baby up for adoption would be a better solution then killing the baby and still having a family that wont accept her. The fact is that it is hurting the baby, therefore shouldn't be legal.

3) This statement is by your own opinion.

The state is our governemnent. They make laws that protect us and society, this includes protection from ourselves.

It is possible if members of society would stop killing eachother, this can be applied to late-term abortion since obviously the baby is being killed. Therefore, a great way to stop the corosion of our society is to make late-term abortion stay illegal.

This is not logical to compare a underdeveloped unborn baby, who did not choose to be in the woman's body, to a grown person who is capable of rashional thought who chooses to break into someone elses home.

The fetus will grow up and perform a task that society requires of it. The woman would be performing one of her tasks to society by baring children. Also, keeping late term abortion illegal is preserving the rights of the fetus.

Final Conclusion

Late-term abortion does not benefit society at all, but takes away valuable future people to carry on society. It is also has a very barbaric procedure in which it is carried out, and women have plenty of rights and alternatives late-term abortion should remain illegal.

Vote con!

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[2]http://civilliberty.about.com...






Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
DBD is Ryan Thomas, according to the name on their profiles (currently public, will probably be closed once DBD sees this).
Posted by Macroscope 5 years ago
Macroscope
I wish i was involved in this debate too...

Its a very simple matter of science; what is classified as alive can be killed. Cells are alive. It doesnt matter what the legal definition of alive is, and, frankly an abortion is its own punishment. Its just that they do no realise it.
If anyone can convince you to wast the precious resources required to make a child, then thats just natural selection. More fool you.
Posted by internet.debater 5 years ago
internet.debater
I'm against abortion at any stage, but Con didn't really address Pro's core argument regarding property rights. I think rebutting this alone would have been more to the point and frankly easier. The issue was whether a woman "owns" a fetus or baby in her womb. If she does, the theory being she can do whatever she wants with it regardless of how barbaric it may or may not be. In my opinion a woman doesn't "own" a fetus at any stage of development. Even if a woman owns "herself" where does "herself" end and the "him/herself" of the baby/fetus begin? By comparison, if a person is dying of starvation does this give them the right to kill another and steal their property to survive? Also, the issue of "rights" were mentioned, rights under what authority? Rights according to God? Rights according to governments? According to the US Constitution? That has to be clarified. In the USA suicide is illegal. This would suggest that according to our values/laws people do NOT own themselves.
Posted by OMGJustinBieber 5 years ago
OMGJustinBieber
This debate was difficult to judge because the topic of the personhood of the fetus wasn't really brought up.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
cont from RFD: Con also seemed more interested in appealing to the reader's emotion than logic.
Posted by ryan_thomas 5 years ago
ryan_thomas
Agreed.
Posted by Aldric_Winterblade 5 years ago
Aldric_Winterblade
No contest here, in my opinion. Late term = barbarism. If a person is so stupid they take that long to decide they don't have a baby, then too bad - they're not going to be permitted to commit brutal murder just to save themselves an inconvenience.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
Andromeda_Zryan_thomasTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter.
Vote Placed by bozotheclown 5 years ago
bozotheclown
Andromeda_Zryan_thomasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Very good round you guys!!! This just came down to what happend in the last round.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Andromeda_Zryan_thomasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Grammar is obvious. As to arguments, Con argued mostly on an assumed moral code with little substantiation, namely, the fetus' bodily rights over the mothers. Con also never contested Pro's point about women getting pregnant even after using birth control, which bypasses Con's point of it being the mother's fault she is pregnant. The fact that Pro stuck to a consistent position in favor of her argument seals it.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Andromeda_Zryan_thomasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Deathbeforedishonour's votebomb. DBD is Ryan Thomas (according to profile name). I see black void countered 6 of DBD's points, but DBD voted again to add the 7th point. I countered 1 point, so the total VB is 7 points, the total counter is 7 points.
Vote Placed by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Andromeda_Zryan_thomasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides did great, but con gave more convencing arguments. He gave more evedence, and he also gave more reasons supporting his case.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Andromeda_Zryan_thomasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering DBD unless he can be less vague :/
Vote Placed by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
Andromeda_Zryan_thomasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's grammar started to slip in the middle of his Round 2. Arguments to Con because he declared the fetus a person after 22 weeks, and Pro never contested this. The right to life trumps the right to liberty, hands down. Sources to Con for using more sources, while there were many places where Pro made claims that should have had sources, but didn't.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Andromeda_Zryan_thomasTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Overall both sides had good arguments but Con's constant portrayal of late term abortion as "sucking brains out" and graphic description which was obviously from a biased source loses him conduct as well as arguments.