The Instigator
Bamboo_Shoot
Pro (for)
The Contender
QueenDaisy
Con (against)

THW ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy

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
Bamboo_Shoot has forfeited round #4.
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: 9/23/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 983 times Debate No: 104111
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Bamboo_Shoot

Pro

Here's a brief outline of the debate

Round 1- acceptances and definitions
Round 2-4 Debating rounds, arguments and rebuttals
Round 5: Summaries- rebuttals are allowed by no NEW arguments are permitted

Some basic rules:

-No personal attackings
-no use of abusive language
-no forfeiting

Getting onto some definitions:

Abortion- the elimination of a foetus during pregnancy.
QueenDaisy

Con

I accept, and will argue against the motion that "THW: ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy".

Some terms I feel it may later prove useful to define:

Suffering: physical or psychological discomfort to a conscious entity.

Central nervous system: a group of organs, mainly the brain and spinal cord, which are made primarily of neutrones.

Consciousness: the ability to percieve one's own existence through the central nervous sysem, or, in principle, some other sensory sytsem.

I can't think of any more terms which will likely need defining, but if I do, I'll define such terms in my later speeches. I'd like to wish my opponent good luck, and thank them and the readers for their attention.
Debate Round No. 1
Bamboo_Shoot

Pro

Abortion is murder. The un-resistible killing of an innocent human being is wrong, even if the being is just a foetus.

With that, I bring you 2 arguments in round 2:

1: Unborn babies have a fundamentalist right to human life.
As soon as the baby is fertilized. A new being is made, with a genetic identify like to no other. A pulse, and a body. The fact is that, there have been over 59 million abortions since the Roe v Wade case in the US alone. That means, more than 59 million innocent foetuses with unique identifies have been denied a right to life (1). Furthermore, what makes abortion fundamentality wrong is that these foetuses are innocent. And cannot resist their brutal killings. Thus, abortion is fundamentally wrong. As it denies human life of an innocent being.

According to the unborn victims of violence act of 2004 (2). Quote "thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section". I already emphasized the fact that abortion is the killing of a child. Thus, it is both unmoral and unlawful to deny human life.

This brings me to my extension: Fetuses DO feel pain during abortion. According to Maureen Condic, PhD of neurobiology and anatomy, assistant professor at the University of Utah states: ""most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex," is developed by eight weeks gestation, and adds that "There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester.""

So yes, fetus DO feel pain.

So therefore, abortion IS the unmoral murder of an innocent human being.

2: Abortions may also lead to problems in the mother

According to a study called "Included abortion and risk of subsequent marriage" (3). It was conducted on thousands of women, and the results conclude as: ~15% of ~15% of attributed to prior history of abortion. Hence, many women have repeated abortions on multiple miscarriages.

So what does Abortion potentially do to the health of the mother? According to a 2014 Chinese study and a 2014 study of women"s with abortions on the international journal of epidemiology (4) , both studies found a strong link between abortion and breast cancer. It concluded "is significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer"

Furthermore, abortions may also cause philological problems for the mother. According to a 2008 study published in the Scandinavian Journal of public health stated that "young women to undergo " abortion may be at increased risk for subsequent depression.

So essentially, abortions also put a permanent torn on the mother. A trend of which breast cancer is more common, and mental health is at risk, sometimes even turning suicidal (5).

Thus, I"ve proved to you in this round that

a.) fetuses deserve a right to life

b.) Abortions can cause later problems for the mother.

For all the above reasons, I beg to propose.

1: http://www.nrlc.org...

2: https://www.congress.gov...

3: https://academic.oup.com...

4: http://www.indianjcancer.com...

5: http://www.rachelsvineyard.org...
QueenDaisy

Con

On foetuses suffering:
According to source 1, 80.1% of abortions performed in the USA in 2013 were at or before 8 weeks after conception*. Assuming Pro's stat of 8 weeks is valid (and frankly I'm not qualified to say whether it is or not) then 80% of abortions occur when the foetus does not have a central nervous sytem of any kind, and therefore is not conscious, and therefore is incapable of suffering in any meaningful way.
At this point I'd like to emphasise the wording of the motion- to ban abortion at ALL stages of pregnancy. I'd agree with Pro that some abortions ought not to be performed, but for me, the cutoff is when the foetus is capable of suffering. There are cases- indeed, 80% of actual abortion cases- where the foetus cannot be said to suffer. Those cases should certainly remain legal.

On the right to life:
It is undeniable that before 8 weeks after fertilisation, the foetus cannot be said to be conscious or sentient. How can a non-sentient entity be considered to have any rights at all? Pro postulates that because the foetus has the potential to become a human life, it has the "right" to do so. Consider that for a moment. If we were to take that claim to its logical progression, we'd have to observe that sperm and egg cells are also capable of becoming a living human. Inded, the technology exists to turn normal human cells into a living being, too. Does a male ejaculation constitute genocide, as it kills millions of potential human lives? Clearly, the "right to life" for all potential lives is a nonsense idea.

On the health of the mother:
Pro's "studies" are severely questionable- what were their p-values? Has the work been repeatedly verified by other researchers?
Even if we accept Pro's studies (and we ought not to), there are a number of things which correlate to a higher chance of depression and cancers- drinking alcohol being a prime example. Should we ban alcohol? The reason we shouldn't is that an adult can do what they like with their own body, even if it may affect them negatively. We cannot reasonably ban abortion for this reason unless we also ban alcohol, smoking, and fast food. But we recognise that something being unhealthy doesn't mean it should be illegal.
We should also consider the health effects of someone *NOT* having an abortion. If someone was raped, for example, carrying it through full-term can be a severely psychologically harmful experience. Pregnancies also correlate with a risk of cancers, due to forcing the body to rapidly to accomodate the foetus. Carrying a foetus to full term also carries with it a risk of postpartum depression (see source 2).
In other words, all of the health risks pro metions can also come from carrying a foetus to full term, too.

Asterisks:
*(NB: the statistics on source 1 are listed in terms of weeks after gestation, not fertilization. As explained in their caption, N weeks after gestation is N-2 weeks after fertilization).

Sources:
[1]: http://www.abort73.com...
[2]: http://www.webmd.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Bamboo_Shoot

Pro

Before I move onto my own arguments, a few pieces of rebuttals:

1.) Suffering of Fetuses.
We both agree on the fact that ~8 weeks the fetus is capable of feeling pain, I already won in that sense of every abortion at or after 8 weeks (Almost 12 million of them). As I talked about previously, many women have repeated abortions (almost all of them from unprotected intercourse). Thus, on side proposition, I believe its illogical to set up such a culture of which fetuses can be disposed. Hence, I believe this culture should not remain.

2.) Right to life
Con says fetuses don"t have protection, no rights what so ever. 2 sub pieces of rebuttal

a.) It"s a quite universal thought that fetuses deserve to be protected such can be seen in the unborn victim"s violence act passed by congress in 2004(Link in previous argument [2]). These fundamentalist beliefs of fetus exists- the question is: To what extent? Hence, propositions claim of that fetus deserve to protection doesn"t stand

a. ii) Pro backs up his claim with the explanation of male ejaculation. However, allow me to clarify the differences between that and a foetus.

Fetuses have unique identities. They"ve already developed a unique DNA and genetic code like to other, and will grow to no other. In fact, it"s growing.

Male ejaculation is not fertilized. Even if you were to leave it alone, nothing would develop from it.

3.) Health

I stated in my first argument that women potentially can have huge side effects from abortions. Con just responds by the fact that they"re a lot of other things that are harmful but are allowed. The difference here is that drinking alcohol does harm to you own health. However, abortion does that too, and furthermore Terminates another being. I agree with you that being unhealthy doesn"t mean illegal, however, being unhealthy to yourself while putting at stake the livelihood of a Fetus should be illegal.

My opponent also goes on to talking about rape victims. Yes, I agree, rape is bad. However, in the Pro world, I find it much more humane to persecute rape with higher punishments, not by terminating a being.

Even if I take him at his best in that Women will "get depression" from carrying a baby. This is a time for weighing. In our world, we believe human life is more important than depression. Depression is curable, there"s plenty of rehab that"s free being offered. However, there"s no therapy for the termination of human life.

Now onto my argument.

1.) Accepting responsibility
I"ve already talked about rape victims, now onto the huge majority of people that do abortions: from unprotected intercourse. Look, by doing intercourse, even with protection measures, people should be aware there"s still a risk of pregnancy and should be responsible for such. I already weighed and proved to you the fundamentalist right of life for these babies. Hence, the baby should NOT be punished its life for a mistake by the adults.
QueenDaisy

Con

Pro asserts that the majority of abortions come from unprotected sex, but has not provided a source for this. As I recall, the majority of abortions come from contraceptive failure- people used condoms, the pill etc. but the condom broke or the pill didn't work.

"I already won in that sense of every abortion at or after 8 weeks"

I think a case could be made in many cases after 8 weeks, too, but I see no need to pursue such a case- as the wording of the motion is that we should ban ALL abortions, I'm happy to concede after 8 weeks. However, the motion still fails, as before 8 weeks, the foetus is not capable of suffering in any meaningful way- how can you justify giving something which is not conscious and is unable to suffer in any way "rights" that even superecede the rights of a live, conscious, woman?

"It"s a quite universal thought that fetuses deserve to be protected such can be seen in the unborn victim"s violence act passed by congress in 2004"

This is an appeal to concensus and to authority. See sources 3 and 4. Why does a non-conscious entity deserve to be protected? Pro has not justified this other than through fallacious appeals.

"Male ejaculation is not fertilized. Even if you were to leave it alone, nothing would develop from it."

A sperm requires a specific set of circumstances to become a living human, but then so does a foetus- it has to remain inside a uterus and to be provided with nutrients and a bunch of other conditions. The foetus is no more capable of developing into a living human vy itself than the sperm is- both require a female body to turn them into a living human. An early foetus is still no more worthy of moral consideration than a sperm cell is, and Pro's implied assertion that it can develop into a human by itself is both false and irrelevant. Having a unique genetic code is also irrelevant- if one of my skin cells mutates, it has a unique genetic code- does that mean I'm obligated to remove its nucleus, place it inside an enucleated egg cell and have it develop into a human, too?

The crux of the argument so far seems to come down to this:
  • We agree that before 8 weeks, a foetus is not capable of suffering in any meaningful way, and is not conscious.
  • Pro asserts that the foetus has a right to life, but has not substantiaated this convincingly- instead using bandwagon and authority fallacies, and irrelevant observations about genetics.

    Sources:
    [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
    [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Bitch_Goddess 9 months ago
Bitch_Goddess
Nkaloms,
Dead people also have human DNA. Does that mean they are alive?
"If you kill an innocent human life that's murder"
If the fetus is not alive, it is not murder.
And the time in which ANYTHING is considered living is when they have brain-activity. Therefore, abortion should be legal until it produces its own brain-activity.

Supreme_Sawk,
"it isn't the woman's body. It's not her cells, her tissue or her organs."
Then take it out of her. She has the right to detach anything that is in her body because, though it is another organism, it is connected and lives because of her body. If the "baby" can't live outside the woman's womb, that's unfortunate. However, she still has the right to determine what is done to her body. So would you rather make it legal for the "baby" to be surgically taken out of the woman (even if it is impossible for it to live on its own)? Because so long as it is inside her, she has the right to say what is done to anything that's connected to her body. You cannot remove that right because you think a non-living object has more rights than her.
"It's a separate organism that is growing inside her body."
Except, it's connected to the umbilical cord. That, therefore, make's it a part of her. Especially since it's only GROWING because of her. And she (as said before) has the right to do whatever she wants to her body. So if she chooses to take it out (even if that results in it becoming inactive) then she can. However, abortion allows her to take it out before it has brain-activity (before it becomes a living object). In which, it should remain legal until a certain point.

If women have to go through the pain and suffering (which, in some cases, includes death as well) of pregnancy, men should not be able to have the ability to get them pregnant.
So basically, if a woman is deprived of her right to abort the fetus, men should be deprived the right of having sex with a woman until they are both prepared for children.
To "make it
Posted by Supreme_Sawk 9 months ago
Supreme_Sawk
Bitch_Goddess, it isn't the woman's body. It's not her cells, her tissue or her organs. It's a separate organism that is growing inside her body. It's no more her body than it is the man's body. This 'it's her body' argument has got to stop.
Posted by Supreme_Sawk 9 months ago
Supreme_Sawk
Bitch_Goddess, it isn't the woman's body. It's not her cells, her tissue or her organs. It's a separate organism that is growing inside her body. It's no more her body than it is the man's body. This 'it's her body' argument has got to stop.
Posted by NKaloms 9 months ago
NKaloms
You may not call it a human child, but it is still an innocent human life. If you kill an innocent human life that's murder. It doesn't matter if you call it a fetus or child or whatever, it has human DNA and therefore it is a human life.
Posted by Bitch_Goddess 9 months ago
Bitch_Goddess
Arganger, it is not a child. A fetus is not a child.
It can GROW into a child, but fetus' are not children.
If this thing doesn't even have any brain-activity, it should not be classified as more important than a woman's right to choose what happens to her body. And no, having a heart beating does not mean you are living.
There's a reason why resuscitation is a method of reviving; the heart has stopped, but the brain activity hasn't. It's why doctors stop trying to resuscitate someone after a certain period of time: they have no more brain activity.
Posted by Arganger 9 months ago
Arganger
Kill the dang rapist if anyone need die, not the child.

Babies get adopted right away, and people wait years to adopt one, most children in care are over five, and if available for adoption came in to care for neglect most likely, Babies are adopted through private agencies who often let the birth mother choose the adopter, and pay for pre-natal care.

I plan to adopt, and my children I hope will never have to wish they were never born, and I don't want anyone wishing that on them.
Posted by SuzaneSnow 9 months ago
SuzaneSnow
So a thirteen year old girl gets raped, and you're saying that the government have the right to force that girl to keep her unwanted baby? I would imagine the girl would never really bond with her baby, and the child would have to grow up knowing of its conception and live with the knowledge that it was not wanted. Surely that is justification enough? That is not a life anyone would want, and surely aborting that baby in its early stages of development would be the better thing to do.

Also, think of the number of children that would end up in care if abortion was banned. There are enough of them already, the banning of abortion would most definitely increase this number, and the more children in care, the lower the quality would become. Where would they get the money to look after so many children? Our taxes? It would get ridiculous, and there would be a lot of children out there wishing they had never been born.

I do realise that there are problems with abortion, for example, the amount of people who have unsafe sex because they know they can either take the morning after pill or have an abortion is ridiculous. But, I'd like to know that if the contraception I was using didn't work and I fell pregnant through no fault of my own, I would be very happy that I have the option to have an abortion.

Also, when do you begin to class a fetus as a human? I personally would not think of it as a human until about 12 weeks. It doesn't even enter the fetal stage until the 11th week, surely abortion before this stage is not inhumane?

Abortion exists for a reason and should not be banned
Posted by SuzaneSnow 9 months ago
SuzaneSnow
So a thirteen year old girl gets raped, and you're saying that the government have the right to force that girl to keep her unwanted baby? I would imagine the girl would never really bond with her baby, and the child would have to grow up knowing of its conception and live with the knowledge that it was not wanted. Surely that is justification enough? That is not a life anyone would want, and surely aborting that baby in its early stages of development would be the better thing to do.

Also, think of the number of children that would end up in care if abortion was banned. There are enough of them already, the banning of abortion would most definitely increase this number, and the more children in care, the lower the quality would become. Where would they get the money to look after so many children? Our taxes? It would get ridiculous, and there would be a lot of children out there wishing they had never been born.

I do realise that there are problems with abortion, for example, the amount of people who have unsafe sex because they know they can either take the morning after pill or have an abortion is ridiculous. But, I'd like to know that if the contraception I was using didn't work and I fell pregnant through no fault of my own, I would be very happy that I have the option to have an abortion.

Also, when do you begin to class a fetus as a human? I personally would not think of it as a human until about 12 weeks. It doesn't even enter the fetal stage until the 11th week, surely abortion before this stage is not inhumane?

Abortion exists for a reason and should not be banned
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.