The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

The government Should not bother with 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 440 times Debate No: 80063
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Rules of the debate
5 rounds
If cross ex are put up questions must be answered or round is forfeited
Say you take on the debate
Then address the arguments provided
Site all sources.

The united states federal government should not interfere with a womens right to choose before 24 weeks into the pregnancy.

Strictly speaking, most doctors define the age of viability as being about 24 weeks of gestation. In many hospitals, 24 weeks is the cutoff point for when doctors will use intensive medical intervention to attempt to save the life of a baby born prematurely.(

If a fetus does not have a viable chance to survive than why should it be considered living? The answer is no, Because the definition of live is "To remain alive" if the fetus does not have the ability to remain alive than how is an abortion murder. The abortion before 24 weeks is just removing the unborn fetus.


The principle of your argument is that a "fetus" under 24 weeks old is not independent (cannot survive on its own) and thus cannot be considered "alive." Lets extract the principle of your argument and apply it to a new situation to show its absurdity. A quadriplegic war veteran is not "viable" because he cannot remain alive without the help of another; he is not independent. Thus killing the war veteran is not murder because his "life (living)" ended when he became completely dependent upon another to sustain him. So your confusing physical independence with ontological independence.

Furthermore, the age of viability is an arbitrary standard to define when life begins. "Five percent of babies born at 22 weeks survived without any outside assistance, according to the Wall Street Journal." This demonstates the arbitrary nature of the age of viability. Its definition changes with technology, biology etc. Thus viability is a function of technology and biology etc.

For example, "a fetus gestating in the United States, whose mother has access to advanced medical technologies, may be able to survive outside the womb at an earlier gestational age than if the exact same fetus were gestating in Rwanda. If person hood depends on viability, the fetus is a person while in the US, and ceases to be a person if the mother travels to Rwanda. ....This makes no sense."

Life begins at fertilization, for this definition is absolute and unchanging.
Debate Round No. 1


stuhan1 forfeited this round.


Waiting for response
Debate Round No. 2


stuhan1 forfeited this round.


Awaiting response
Debate Round No. 3


stuhan1 forfeited this round.


awaiting response
Debate Round No. 4


Thank you so much for waiting for my response I've been extremely busy.

Cross Examiation

First what is your definition of Viable.

Where did your sources come from there is no citation there fore it is not valid

A quadraplegic war veteran does not need an iron lung to breath or tubes to feed and give it milk or an incubator to keep it them warm so that analogy is incorrect.

Your argument for ontological independence is completely irrelevant ontological independence relates to countries and nations

Give a good paragraph description of rwanda and u.s. mothers(5-7 sentences)

Please vote for the Aff team
It will keep the government from interfering in the lives of women in america. Letting them keep there bodies as their own and not the governments property. We are not property of the government so women should not be treated as it.


"First what is your definition of Viable."
This is precisely my point, it does not have an absolute definition as it depends upon biological factors and is a function of technology. The time of viability cannot be determined precisely, and this fact would create great practical problems for those who hold this opinion. Example "An early horror story from New York about nurses who were expected to alternate between caring for six-month premature infants and disposing of viable 24-week aborted fetuses is just that"a horror story."

This is the most common criterion used in drafting laws regulating abortion whether a foetus can survive outside the womb depends on:
the state of medical science
the medical facilities available at a particular location
the competence or willingness of the mother (or some other care-giver)
the gender of the foetus
the race of the fetus
There is something unsatisfactory about a being's rights being determined by its sex or race, the state of medical science, the state of medical facilities at a particular location, or the type of mother it has

A common definition of the age of viability
"By 21 to 22 weeks after fertilization, the lungs gain some ability to breathe air. This is considered the age of viability because survival outside the womb becomes possible for some fetuses." The age of viability is indeed a slippery, arbitrary definition used to justify murder. The burden of proof lies upon you to justify why a fetus before the age of viability is NOT a human. According to you "womens right to choose before 24 weeks into the pregnancy," which is a positive statement.

"A quadriplegic war veteran does not need an iron lung to breath or tubes to feed and give it milk or an incubator to keep it them warm so that analogy is incorrect."
Are you saying the quadriplegic war veteran is independent? Clearly not. Like the baby he must rely upon someone else to keep him/her alive. This argument concerns the principle of independence. A sick, elderly, or disabled person who reaches a level of dependency roughly analogous to that of a pre-viability fetus would cease to be a person under this schema.

"Where did your sources come from there is no citation there fore it is not valid"
The first quote comes from the Wall Street Journal as i stated. The second quote is rhetorical and self evident. It is a fact that US medical technology is superior to what is found in Rwanda. The gestational age at which a prematurely born baby has a shot at long-term survival has been steadily regressing for decades as medical technology has advanced.

"Your argument for ontological independence is completely irrelevant ontological independence relates to countries and nations"
Definition of ontological:
'of or relating to ontology, the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such; metaphysical'
The baby has a mind and spirit, an essence, which is separate from the mother. How does viability transform the intrinsic nature of the fetus so that the non-human being then turns into a human being? You are simply imposing an extrinsic criteria to declare when it is human and when it is not. Person hood is of an intrinsic nature. This criterion only tells us when certain members of our society want to accept the humanity of the unborn.

By voting against the motion and for me, your are reinforcing the value of human life and the unborn child's right to life. Stop discrimination upon age and prevent the slippery moral slope from worsening
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by MizzEnigma 2 years ago
in the womb it is not those things* I ran out of characters to directly specify. My apologies.
Posted by MizzEnigma 2 years ago
A baby survives off the mother, using her proteins, etc. That makes it dependent on her life. This is why it is related to a parasite, in the aspect that it thrives in her (parasite is also his) body, feeding off them and not for the woman's own benefit (unless she wills it so.)

A fetus is human. That's undeniable. The question is if it is a human being. It's not an individual, thus not a person or human being, therefore is not entitled to the same rights. It is capable of being an individual, a person, and capable of having those rights, but in the womb it is not. Depriving someone who is already such and has those rights is, legally and not, wrong. Of course, whether it is a human being or not, a person or not, an individual or not, is up to you - as a matter of acceptance, but by definition it is not.

any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species
Sociology: an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
Philosophy: a self-conscious or rational being.
an individual human being who likes or prefers something specified (used in combination)
a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
a human being, whether an adult or child
single; particular; separate
distinguished by special, singular, or markedly personal characteristics; exhibiting unique or unusual qualities
Biology: a single organism capable of independent existence; a member of a compound organism or colony.

A war veteran is separate from another human being/person/individual, therefore is still entitled to rights, though dependent on others (not off) in
Posted by komododragon8 2 years ago
How long will we have to post our arguments?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.