The Instigator
Anime_Otaku16
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wiploc
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

There should be a law that only allows abortions before the end of the first trimester

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
wiploc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 972 times Debate No: 31707
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Anime_Otaku16

Pro

Abortions should only be allowed before the end of the women's first trimester (the first 3 months), after the first three months the only option for the unborn child should be adoption. Why punish the baby for the mistakes of another.
wiploc

Con

I don't see any reason to believe your claim. State your case.
Debate Round No. 1
Anime_Otaku16

Pro

Abortions should only be allowed before the end of the women's first trimester (the first 3 months), after the first three months the only option for the unborn child should be adoption. Why punish the baby for the mistakes of another. This is my belief because there are thousands of women who cannot conceive and some are grief-stricken for that reason. Most women that cannot conceive are looking to adopt a newborn if we passed a law such as this they're would be more babies for those women.
wiploc

Con

That's still just a claim, not an argument.

: Abortions should only be allowed before the end of the women's first trimester (the first 3 months), after the first three months the only option for the unborn child should be adoption.

Why? Why do you believe this? Why should we believe it? What is significant about three months?


: Why punish the baby for the mistakes of another.

It's not a baby yet. It's not an unborn child either. Why don't you call it an unborn adult? Or an unborn English teacher?

And it's not punishment. The embryo isn't a person; there's nobody to punish.

Why not start your rule four months sooner? "There should be a law that you have to have sex every night. Otherwise, you're punishing innocent sperm cells!"

: This is my belief because there are thousands of women who cannot conceive and some are grief-stricken for that reason.

I doubt that. I doubt that your belief is based on the thousands of women who can't conceive. Would you change your mind about abortion if new fertility treatments fixed them? Would you change your mind if you saw orphanages with children that nobody wants? If forbidding abortions didn't fix the baby deficit, would you require more conceptions?

And even if that's your true motive, why should one woman get to force another woman to have a baby for her?

: Most women that cannot conceive are looking to adopt a newborn if we passed a law such as this they're would be more babies for those women.

But if we don't pass that law, then maybe they'll adopt older kids, kids who are people, and who already exist and need parents. If you favor forcing women to have children for other women, why don't you favor forcing women to adopt kids they don't want?

In a philosophy class, I learned about scientists who tested birth control on poor mexican women. Some of them were told they were getting birth controll, but were really getting placebos. The excuse of the scientists was that the women could always have abortions if they didn't want babies. That's reprehensible. I'm pro-abortion, but there is absolutely no reason to assume the victims of those scientists were pro-abortion. We can't assume that those women could have abortions, no more than we can assume that your proposed victims can give their kids up for adoption.

There's a huge difference between not having a kid and having a kid and giving it away.

If you're going to force people to have children when they don't want to, you are exercising enormous power, destroying freedom, hurting people, ruining lives. You need a compelling reason for that. You haven't given us a reason.

I'd rather live in a free country than in one where the government gets to decide whether and when you'll have children. In China, they force women to have abortions. That's no less of an enormity than forbidding abortions. It is a gross intrusion on the private decisions of otherwise free people.

In a free country, we get to make our own reproductive decisions. Freedom is good.





Debate Round No. 2
Anime_Otaku16

Pro

-----Why? Why do you believe this? Why should we believe it? What is significant about three months?
-----It's not a baby yet. It's not an unborn child either. Why don't you call it an unborn adult? Or an unborn English teacher?

I wasn"t really going for terms but if you want to get technical the unborn child. It is a human being the moment the egg is fertilized it starts to produce cells at a mass rate and by as little as five weeks its heart starts beating. Meaning by five weeks the unborn child is in fact now alive and growing. By three months the unborn child goes from being called an embryo to a fetus, meaning that it now has limbs and such. This fetus if allowed can now be born and grow up to be a very successful person.

-Why not start your rule four months sooner? "There should be a law that you have to have sex every night. Otherwise, you're punishing innocent sperm cells!"
Sperm Cells are not things that will achieve a heartbeat or mind of their own alone. You aren"t punishing them because there is no them. Until they fertilize an egg they are only there. Your body can create much more.
-----I doubt that. I doubt that your belief is based on the thousands of women who can't conceive. Would you change your mind about abortion if new fertility treatments fixed them? Would you change your mind if you saw orphanages with children that nobody wants? If forbidding abortions didn't fix the baby deficit, would you require more conceptions?
"Number of married women ages 15-44 that are infertile (unable to get pregnant for at least 12 consecutive months): 1.5 million" this is a copied statistic from the CDC Home Website as you can see there are indeed more than thousands in the united states alone that cannot conceive. Not all women are comfortable with fertility treatments and would rather just adopt a baby they can raise as their own. Not require and not trying to fix only trying to save the lives of those 50 million aborted babies that had no say in there unlived lives.

-----And even if that's your true motive, why should one woman get to force another woman to have a baby for her?

Not forced but just made aware that her unborn child can live its life being loved by a mother who never had the opportunity she has.

-----But if we don't pass that law, then maybe they'll adopt older kids, kids who are people, and who already exist and need parents. If you favor forcing women to have children for other women, why don't you favor forcing women to adopt kids they don't want?

Those children that are older have a choice already on how they choose to live and if they want to be adopted to a certain family or person where as those unborn children don"t. They can"t yell out or say they"re mind yet. As a "FREE" country shouldn"t EVERY LIVING beings have its right to live? They aren"t being FORCED to have anything? You don"t force them to have sex, they did that on their own free will but at least take responsibilities and think that this child could change the world, become president, be the next pope or a great philosopher.
wiploc

Con

The Resolution:

Pro undertook to prove that "There should be a law that only allows abortions before the end of the first trimester."

The Concession:

Now she says that's not true. Women shouldn't be forced to have babies, but only "made aware that her unborn child can live its life being loved by a mother who never had the opportunity she has."

Pro has conceded that the resolution is False.

The Harms:

By Pro's own numbers, her resolution would force fifty million unwilling women to have babies in order to fill a backlog of only one and a half million babies. Think of the misery that would cause. Fifty million unwilling pregnancies; forty-eight and a half million unwanted children. The resolution would cause much harm.

A better solution---not good, but far less damaging than that proposed by Pro---would be to let certified infertile women choose one single fertile woman, and get a court order forcing her to have children and then surrender them. That would be terrible, but far less terrible than putting fifty million women though that same involuntary servitude for the benefit of a few.

Forcing women to have kids is a huge imposition. It is treating people as objects, as property, rather than as people. It is immoral, a form of sexual slavery. Could you walk up to someone and say, "I don't want this kid anymore; therefore, you must take it and raise it as your own." Could you say, "I think the world is too crowded; therefore, I order you not to have children." Or, "I like boys, therefore I order you to surrender your girls for adoption and try again." Those would all be terrible, but not more terrible than Pro's resolution.

In a free country, we choose whether to have children. Government does not get to cancel and overrule the personal decisions of private citizens.


The Various Rationales:

One way you can recognize when you are in the wrong is this: If you find yourself flailing around, grasping and abandoning one rationale after another, then you probably don't have a real justification for your position. What rationales has Pro tried?

- The PoC (product of conception, or, as Pro might have it, unborn very successful person) is a human being.
This doesn't distinguish PoCs after three months from those before, or even from gametes. All are human. All be. This test fails to draw a line at three months

- It produces cells at a mass rate.
Pro says this doesn't start at three months.

- It has a beating heart.
Pro says this doesn't start at three months.

- It has limbs.
We don't get to kill limbless people. This test isn't relevant.

- It can now be born.
Right now, three months is way too early. But, presumably, science will eventually fix that so even a baby that has to be taken from the womb at one month can survive. They'll probably be able to take it back to before conception, allowing test tube babies to grow into "very successful adults" without ever having been in wombs. So this test also fails. It has nothing to do with three months.

- It can now be born.
Let's put a different spin on this one. Let's say Pro is saying that, after three months, if we leave the PoC alone, and let it develop in a natural way, it may eventually, with some luck, get born. But this is true also of PoCs before three months. It is true even of an egg and sperm cell in a womb together. This test has nothing to do with Pro's arbitrary three-month limit.

- Sperm cells have no "them."
What does this mean? Whatever it means, it doesn't draw a line at three months. What I think it means, my best and most charitable interpretation, is that it means the sperm cell isn't a person. It may be human, and it may be, but nobody's home: it doesn't have consciousness. I've raised this personhood issue myself, and Pro seems to be agreeing that it's important, but she isn't tying it to her arbitrary three-month limit. Pro has given us no reason to believe that conscious personhood happens at three months.

- Your body can create more.
This one is outrageous. Should we kill three-year-olds because our bodies can create more? This rule would allow all abortions. It doesn't support Pro's arbitrary three months limit.

- Not all women are comfortable with fertility treatments and would rather just adopt a baby they can raise as their own.
Not all women are comfortable with being forced to have babies for other women; they'd rather not have children at all, or not have children until they want them for themselve. Not all Americans are comfortable with government intrusion into their private reproductive decisions; they'd rather this be a free country.

- Aborted babies have no say in their unlived lives.
This is true of sperm cells and unfertilized eggs too. But it's okay, there's no problem with it, because they don't have any opinions. They aren't people. They have no personhood, no consciousness. There's no reason for us to impute opinions to them like, "I want to be born," or, "I don't want to be born," or, "Take off that condom so I can get me some." And, as established, Pro has not argued that personhood happens at three months. This rationale doesn't support Pro's arbitrary three-month limit.

- "shouldn"t EVERY LIVING beings have a right to live?" Sic, and emphasis in original.
No, we kill for food. We kill in self defense. We kill human living cancer cell beings. Even Pro is okay with killing PoCs before three months. And for killing sperm and eggs. Not every living thing has a right to live. Dandelions, mold spoors, wheat rust; nothing without personality, without consciousness and opinion, can have rights. There is no point, no utility, to pretending they do. And even if we were going to abuse ourselves and our society by pretending that such things do have rights, this would have nothing to do with Pro's arbitrary three-month limit.

Conclusion:

- Pro has conceded that the resolution is false.

Vote Con.

- None of Pro's arguments survive inspection. None of them would support her arbitrary three-month limit even if they did survive inspection. Pro has not, therefore, met the burden of proof. Her claim, the resolution, is unsupported.

Vote Con.

- While Pro's arbitrary three-month rule serves no purpose that she cares to name, it would do enormous harm to individual lives and to American freedom.

Vote Con.

- While Pro's S&G isn't a serious nuisance, her formatting is pretty confusing. Since her S&G is worse than mine, voting S&G points is permissible. I suggest that one or more of you vote the S&G point and specifically point out that she could boldface quoted material, or start the first line of quoted material with a colon, or otherwise take pains to distinguish quoted material from new material.

Vote Spelling and Grammar for Con.

- I don't have any citations. Pro mentioned the CDC. But even if you want to count that mention-without-link as a source, she did not use that source in a way that helped her case. From the CDC, Pro got the figures that she could fill a 1.5 million baby shortfall by forcing 50 million people to have babies. This doesn't help her case. It is not persuasive at all. Therefore it cannot be "more persuasive." She does not have a "more persuasive" source.

Don't vote sources either way.

---

Thanks for reading, everybody. And thanks, Pro, for participating. And thanks to DDO for hosting.









Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
CON: "The Resolution:

"Pro undertook to prove that "There should be a law that only allows abortions before the end of the first trimester."

The Concession:

"Now she says that's not true. Women shouldn't be forced to have babies, but only "made aware that her unborn child can live its life being loved by a mother who never had the opportunity she has." "

Agree this is a concession. You cannot alter the resolution mid-way. Laws imply coercion/enforcement, so to say that people should only be made aware implies that you no longer support a law curtailing abortions, but rather a law that mandates increasing awareness on the negative impacts of unplanned pregnancies.

Arguments CON.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
I'll take this if you change it to 72 hour rounds.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Anime_Otaku16wiplocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm inclined to agree with Pro on grounds that the fetus is likely to be viable separate from the mother at a point sooner than the second trimester that the Supremes used as a benchmark. Pro made no such argument, and ended up making conflicting arguments. Te burden of proof was not met. a clear win for Con.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Anime_Otaku16wiplocTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: see comment - concession by PRO.