Should teenager girls who have been raped, have access to abortion?
Debate Rounds (3)
I will start with one statement, then i would like to hear your side before i make my argument.
Anyone who is raped should have access to abortion, if that is what the person feels right doing then that is their decision.
First of all, I want to thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate, and I am glad to accept. I want to point out that this debate specifically is asking whether or not teenage girls who are the victims of rape should have access to abortions. You may ask why the Con side would point that out, but I am doing that for a reason. First, I will argue that abortion is morally wrong; then, I will proceed to explain why the circumstances surrounding the girl's age and the rape are irrelevant to the morality of abortion.
As soon as a sperm meets an egg, conception occurs, starting an irreversible journey through life. It is illogical to say that the fetus is not yet a baby due to its not being fully developed, as we change throughout our lives as well. For instance, a newborn is very different from an 11-year old, who is very different from a 18-year old, who is in turn very different from a 65-year old. Development occurs throughout our lives, not solely in the nine months of it that we spend in our mothers' wombs. How is it our right to determine how developed a person needs to be to qualify as a person? Some far-left activists are actually advocating the legalization of "post-birth abortion" in cases where an attempted abortion failed . Is that acceptable? Any rational person would say no. However, that brings about the issue of when we are considered human. The answer is that there is no point in our development where we suddenly go from non-human to human. On the other hand, we are human from the point of conception. Finally, it also makes no sense to argue that the baby could not survive without its mother until 20 weeks, as it takes several years of life before one could truly survive on his or her own. Can we just pick an arbitrary age before which it is legal to kill someone? No. Then, why do we do that under the disguise of "freedom of choice"?
Furthermore, babies show vital signs of life very quickly after conception. Eighteen days after conception, a heartbeat is detectable, and brainwaves can be detected at 6 weeks . Also, according to Maureen Condic, a neurobiologist at the University of Utah, the nervous system begins to develop at 4 weeks and is complete by 8 weeks . Therefore, the baby can feel the pain of an abortion occurring. If statistics do not convince you, just Google pictures of a baby in the womb and tell me that it is not human. Therefore, clearly, life does begin at conception, thus making abortion and murder one in the same.
If we accept that abortion is murder and morally wrong, then, the other question to consider is whether those circumstances are changed by being a teenage girl who was raped. First of all, I want to point out that the age of the girl is irrelevant, as a teenager is fully capable of having a baby and raising it. Should she not want to raise the baby, adoption is always an option and a good solution to the abortion problem.
Secondly, we have to consider the situation around rape. I am the first to say that rape is a terrible thing that must not be allowed. However, the crime of rape is not justified by the crime of murder, which is what the Pro side is arguing should be legal. Killing the baby that results from the rape does nothing to avenge the crime. Now, I do sympathize with the girl who did nothing of her own accord, but still got pregnant. I have a solution for this problem, though. If a girl or woman gets pregnant as a result of a rape, an additional charge should be added to the rapist's charges. He would then have to pay the medical bills associated with the pregnancy and serve a longer term in jail for making the victim also go through a pregnancy. However, the baby itself is an innocent bystander in the crime, and it should not be given the death penalty for the rapist's actions.
Once again, I thank my opponent for this debate and look forward to seeing her argument.
Making abortion illegal or legal has no effect on the total number of abortions performed in the world. Making abortion legal dramatically reduces maternal morbidity and mortality.
Between 10 and 50% of unsafe abortion cases need medical attention but a lot of women delay or decide not to seek medical care. This is because in a lot of countries where it is illegal to have abortions performed, the women who go to the hospital for help will be reported to the local law authorities and are subject to arrest and spending time in jail. The medical staff often refuses to help and will even harass women about their botched abortion.
What would happen if we were to make abortion illegal? More deaths. I completely understand what you say about we are never non-human etc. And i agree with that, but you have to think about it from all possible perspectives. I agree abortions shouldn't just be available to any person who doesn't want a kid. No, you weren't careful and that is your consequence, i believe this to be true in many situations. Such as a teenager girl not having safe sex, that is her child and yes you might have a lot more trouble in school and work now, but that was the decision that you made. Same goes with the adults out there, you had the sex, that is your child. But you also have to flip the coin and ask, why are you getting an abortion. They could be poorer then dirt and not be able to afford to raise them and don't want to have that kid go through a miserable life in the system. It could be a medical problem, your situation could be life threatening, if you have that child you might die. Would you really want your kid to go through life without their mother? No. I don't believe any reasonable person would want that. Also, i don't understand your point when you say, "Finally, it also makes no sense to argue that the baby could not survive without its mother until 20 weeks, as it takes several years of life before one could truly survive on his or her own. " I agree, so why, if you were in such a situation, would you want to leave that child to try and survive on their own?
I'm not saying that abortion is always the right thing. In fact i disagree with it most of the time, but as i have shown, making it illegal would cause many more problems.
When you state that, " First of all, I want to point out that the age of the girl is irrelevant, as a teenager is fully capable of having a baby and raising it." I disagree with this completely, a teenage girl is not capable of raising a child, they are not mature enough to raise that child the way it needs to be. They can barely take care of their selves without the help of their parents. How can you expect a teenage girl who still being raised and taken care of by her parents to raise and take care of a child? I also completely disagree with the statement of, adoption always being a good solution. It is not, there are so many things that can and do go wrong with this. Granted it can be a good thing, but there are many problems with it.
here is a short paragraph as to why its not a good thing for the child, "Adoption is a social, emotional, and legal process through which children who will not be raised by their birth parents become full, permanent, and legal members of another family. As such, adoption involves the rights of three distinct "triad members": the birth parents, the child, and the adoptive parents. Adoption is also a lifelong process. Ethical issues change over time as children who were adopted become adults and may choose to claim their right to know their genetic and historical identity. It is imperative that professionals working in adoption act ethically to ensure the rights of all the involved parties at all points in the process. In this section, find resources to help guide the professional's ethical practice in all phases of adoption."
When it comes to rape, i can tell you first hand what it is like, AFTER the fact. I do't think people truly understand what that kind of thing does to a person. You are left scarred for the rest of your life, that pain never truly goes away. If a teenage girl is raped, and gets pregnant that could make it an even more traumatic experience. You already have the emotional scarring and now physical scarring, then you add a baby that you never meant to have that is the product of a person who caused the scarring. Some people can not handle that type of emotional stress and you can't blame them, they didn't choose to be put through that. They might want to love that child, but they might not be capable of giving them that love and care that they need. Then if you put that child into the system they can grow up thinking that, "my mom doesn't love me" and not only that but being put through that kind of stress as a child with give them huge emotional scars for the rest of their lives! So tell me, which would be worse? Sparing the child from a life of pain, and emotional trauma? Or letting them live through all of the things we try to protect our children from?
Thank you, and i hope to hear your response soon.
TeaPartyAtheist forfeited this round.
julianna.rose forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Enji 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:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Concession by Con
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.