Debate Rounds (5)
I graciously accept this debate and look forward to the discussion. Because the actual claim was unclear in the initial arugment, it has been determined in the comments section that Pro's argument is as follows:
Late term abortion, abortion occuring between 15-24 weeks, is always "exceptionally wrong".
I intend to demonstrate that this argument is false by demonstrating that there exists cases wherein late-term abortion is necessary for the well being of the mother and should not be considered "exceptionally wrong" in all cases.
I look forward to your initial arguments.
FYI a fetus is legally considered a human 8 weeks after conception.
"In what cases do you say that this is okay, concerning the mother? Because I understand that if the physical wait could harm the mother or the child, that should lead to an early birth through c-section. "
You defined late-term abortion as abortion when a fetus has a gestational age of 15-25 weeks. Ectopic pregnancies are pregnancies wherein the embryo implants outside the uterus and are extremely dangerous for mothers, that has a very high probability to lead to their death if not medically treated. (1)
In some rare cases these diagnoses are made early in the second trimester (3) which is the range from about 14 to 26 weeks (4). Although the earliest known babies to survive premature birth were just under 22 weeks, neonatologists generally do not provide intensive care to babies born under 23 weeks. (2)
"..most neonatologists would agree that survival of infants younger than approximately 22 to 23 weeks’ estimated gestational age [i.e. 20 to 21 weeks' estimated fertilization age] is universally dismal and that resuscitative efforts should not be undertaken when a neonate is born at this point in pregnancy." (5)
Therefore, if a serious and immediate health risk to the mother, such as an ectopic pregnancy, was diagnosed prior to any remotely reasonable chance the baby would be viable, such as between 15-20 weeks, it would be the most prudent decision to terminate the pregnancy, as the chances of the baby surviving are extremely small, in order to prevent the very likely serious harm or death to the mother.
While this scenario may indeed a rare one, I believe that it is a very real example of one in which the late-term abortion is not to be considered "exceptionally wrong".
(5) Halamek, Louis. "Prenatal Consultation at the Limits of Viability", NeoReviews, Vol.4 No.6 (2003)
"Goodness your good."
Well, thank you! I try my darndest.
"BUT, do you actually think it's right for a live human being to be torn limb from limb, skull crushed, just for the sake of yet another human being? They could find some other way to save the mother, if they tried."
"For the sake of" is a slight oversimplification, it seems. What I've tried to do is at least demonstrate that there is no remote moral equivolence between a mother having an abortion because she thinks she will be simply inconvienced and a mother that cannot carry a child to viability without seriously risking her own life in the process.
I AM in favor of attempting to do everything within reason to prevent the loss of life, which includes the mother as well as the unborn child. I personally find many instances of abortion to be morally reprehensible, but for the purpose of this debate I am not willing to accept your position that in every case and every circumstance is it always exceptionally wrong to terminate a pregnancy, and I think I've demonstrated why that is the case.
What are your thoughts? Would you consider that there exists some instances where it is an extremely sad and unfortunate choice that has to be made by some mothers for their own personal well-being, rather than a callous and disgusting act of violence in order to rid oneself of their personal responsibility?
"I have to admit that if the mother is risking her life and the babies life, IF they do everything possible first, then it would only be logical to remove the child from the mother... ...I do agree that this is not ALWAYS completely wrong. "
Well I very much appreciate your intellectual honestly. I think we would probably agree on most things on the subject, but I always try to tread very lightly when making claims that involve "always" or "never" unless I have considered all of the options available to me, which is rarely possible.
I think it's clear for those voting that the point has been conceded by Con.
"But in the case of parents who just do it because they can, that is wrong."
I think we could end it here on a point of agreement, unless you have any final comments you'd like to make. Thanks again for the discussion, I hope it's been as enlightening for you as it has for me.
The pleasure was mine.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Graceful concession.
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.