The Instigator
Life.i
Pro (for)
The Contender
TheUnexaminedLife
Con (against)

Prolifer or not?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Life.i has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2017 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 353 times Debate No: 99975
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Life.i

Pro

I am for pro-life 100% and here's why:
-The fetus is actually living because the definition of a fetus is unborn human baby more than eight after weeks conception and their heart starts beating on the THIRD week.
-I find it as murder since the baby (or Fetus) is already ALIVE when the abortion happens.
-Rape victims who got abortions usually have more troubles put onto them.
-Getting an abortion is NOT going to change anything about being raped expect you won't get a baby, you've still been violated.
-It's the parents fault for having unprotected conception in the first place. If they didn't want a child, they should have been protected.
TheUnexaminedLife

Con

Exploring each of your points, your pro-life position is clearly untenable.

Firstly, you write that 'the fetus is actually living'; what as? I would like to ask you whether a fertilised cell is living as a person or as a cluster of cells? Whilst it is undeniable that an embryo has the potential for life, it is not living in the complexity and power that a normal human plainly exhibits. Without this basic personhood, it is denied the right to life. We don't give rights to potential but to actual life; your associations of the embryo and an 'unborn human baby' are completely emotive for it is not a baby. If it was born, it wouldn't be able to live viably. Your belief that the heartbeat makes the embryo a human is likewise completely false; all animals have heart beats yet very few are anthropocentrised to the point of being called humans with the right to live.
At the third week, the cluster of cells that is potential life is actually a blastocyst. It takes an additional two weeks for any cardiac function to start operating. And, even if I accepted this as the conception of all human life, it would suggest that abortion before this point is acceptable. I would ask my opponent to state when exactly they think a fertilised egg becomes a living human with full personhood. Because, you see, 'murder', again is another highly emotive term. For abortion to be murder, it necessitates that the embryo or fetus is a human with full personhood unless of course you believe that any killing is a form of murder by virtue of the fact life is taken. If so, even sterilising harmful microbes and curing people of illnesses is a form of murder considering that those microbes are in fact alive.

As for your third and fourth points.
So you think that a woman who has been violated, should continue to be violated by having to carry the burden of someone else's crime with her? Judith Thompson enunciates this point quite effectively in describing a mother in pregnancy as a living human incubator. Her right to her body ought not to be suspended by an unwanted pregnancy, Placing the rights of the potential life over the rights of the actual mother seems absurd. To grow a child is to optionally donate your organs to another human being. Are you suggesting that corporeal bodies can be exploited by others just to sustain their lives? Should the healthy be forced to donate organs to those who need them to live? If we possess our own bodies, we should be allowed the autonomy to use them however we please taking into account all social, physiological, psychological and financial variables into account.
Suppose the rape victim is a young girl who would likely die at childbirth is she didn't have it aborted? Ought she have to suffer? As for your point that 'more troubles' occur for the women as a result of abortion, though it will inexorably be quite traumatic for many, you cannot generalise the affect abortion has on all women. For some, it will surely be the best and most humane option at the time. 'Getting a baby', isn't like getting a prize or a Christmas gift, it's getting a whole array of obligations and duties which could be more inimical to both the mother and the baby if the mother doesn't want to fulfil them. Especially if screening in pregnancy shows severe disability, someone will have to support that child for their entire lives. Support ought to be optional and not obligatory. You may retort that the child could be adopted, which is true. But, it comes at the cost of some suffering to both the mother and the child.

And finally,
'It's the parents fault'!!! We don't want to cultivate a lax attitude to sex!!! (this is sarcasm just in case of Poe's Law) You assume that contraception is available; that, the parents are in a country rich and ideologically liberal enough where it is widely available. And, moreover, you assume that a momentary decision necessitates a lifetime of burden. Supposing both parties fully autonomous, I don't see why it would be more responsible of them to continue with the pregnancy over terminating it. Not only have they erred in your view, but they must now stay committed to their error. They must not seek to correct it. They must be punished for their transgression! Conception is not a one act causal concomitance; conception doesn't necessitate birth. It only produces the next step, a step which can be talked about, and which can be tackled in accordance with the best interests of all living humans involved.

In the UK the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act permits abortion up to 24 weeks. Reducing this to 8 weeks as you suggest is absurd. Not only does it give little time for mother to pragmatically decide what it best for them and what will be best for the child, it creates the illusion that an 8 week old embryo is a human with full personhood (Peter Singer will be convulsing in his armchair from severe disagreement). Abortion is self-defence on behalf of a woman against an unwanted pregnancy; it is not the gross infanticide of thousands of 'unborn babies'.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Wisecracker 1 year ago
Wisecracker
An excellent response con this person had not done their research nor defended their point they clearly stated it. Personally I am a pro-choice person because women have never had the rights to have choices such as this. That being said I do not believe in feminism I find it to be annoying and run by a woman who has nothing else to do with her life. I await the next round.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.