The Instigator
Free_Th1nker
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Grant84football
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Women Should Lose Their Right to Abortion When the Fetus Reaches Viability

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 2 votes the winner is...
Free_Th1nker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,240 times Debate No: 58931
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (38)
Votes (2)

 

Free_Th1nker

Pro

This argument is about the reproductive rights of women in the United States when the fetus reaches viability.

Viability: interim point at which the fetus becomes ... potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. (This definition is taken from Roe v. Wade).

Pro will argue that a woman has a right to abortion until the fetus reaches viability.

Con will argue that a woman should be able to receive an abortion at any point during the pregnancy regardless of the development of the fetus.

I consider this topic open for debate because only 41 states have laws restricting post-viability abortion. I understand reproductive rights can be a very controversial issue and I completely respect any and all opinions on the topic, as long as those opinions do not systemically and unfairly deprive women of their right to bodily integrity. This debate operates on the consensus between pro and con that abortion is a legitimate, legal option until the point of viability. Any arguments that all abortions are murder will be dismissed from this particular debate.

Remember, that what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Debate is 4 rounds:
1. Acceptance and brief opening argument.
2. Short rebuttal to opponent's opening argument and an elaboration on your position.
3. Rebuttals to the elaborated argument, new information can be stated if you wish.
4. Closing statements, no new information.

------------

My opening argument:

The government has a legitimate, compelling interest in any human life form that can potentially survive without a mother's womb. Additionally, the later in the pregnancy an abortion is performed, the more dangerous it gets for the woman. This position does not assert a woman cannot get an abortion while the fetus is viable. However, this position asserts that it should be the decision of the government, based on the opinions of qualified medical experts, whether or not the woman should be allowed to get an abortion once the fetus has reached viability. For example, a woman who was set to deliver a child that would imminently suffer and die upon birth would not be prohibited from receiving an abortion at all, but the approval of the abortion would have to come from the government.

Debate Round No. 1
Free_Th1nker

Pro

Thank you for accepting, con. I hope by agree you mean you agree and accept the terms of the debate which we are about to have.

To elaborate on my main arguments, we as a country need to decide at what point the government should have a "compelling state interest" (terminology used under the doctrine of strict scrutiny) in preserving potential life, in this case the fetus or baby. Although there is no exact point during all pregnancies when viability begins, on average a fetus becomes viable around the 23rd week of gestation. Although at the 23rd week the chances of survival are relatively low (a modest 20-35%), a baby's chances for survival increases 3-4% per day between 23 and 24 weeks of gestation and about 2-3% per day between 24 and 26 weeks of gestation (http://www.spensershope.org...). Survival rates are 50 to 70 percent for babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks (multiple sources support these data). This high rate of survival of fetuses that have reached viability certainly creates a compelling state interest in preserving the potential life of the baby.

It is easy to understand why a couple, or a single woman, would want to get an abortion this late in her pregnancy, if the baby would be born with severe disabilities, deformities, or diseases that would only lead to pain, suffering, and death. In this case, the government could still maintain the right to allow the woman to have an abortion. A simple appeal could be made by the woman, supported by the opinion of a medical expert, and together they could determine it is less cruel to abort. However, an abortion to prevent suffering is typically not the case. In a 1995 speech at a National Abortion Federation Convention in New Orleans, George Tiller said, "We have some experience with late terminations; about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past 5 years." Perhaps this was just a regional phenomenon, but Luhra Tivis had already confirmed the pattern in an article she wrote in 1994: "I witnessed evidence of the brutal, cold blooded murder of over 600 viable, healthy babies at seven, eight and nine months gestation. A very, very few of these babies, less than 2%, were handicapped[.] " I thought I was pro-choice and I was glad to be working in an abortion clinic. I thought I was helping provide a noble service to women in crisis. " I was instructed to falsify the age of the babies in medical records. I was required to lie to the mothers over the phone, as they scheduled their appointments, and to tell them that they were not "too far along" Then I had to note, in the records that Dr. Tiller"s needle had successfully pierced the walls of the baby"s heart, injecting the poison what brought death[.]" Clearly, the trend does not support that women are getting late pregnancy abortions to benefit the potential baby.

The second major concern is the health of the woman receiving the abortion. Abortion is a fairly safe procedure for a woman. However, the procedure becomes much more dangerous the longer the woman waits:
" One death per every 530,000 abortions if you are at eight weeks or less
" One death per 17,000 abortions for pregnancies at 16"20 weeks
" One death per 6,000 abortions at 21 weeks and more.
(http://www.midlandlifecenter.org...)

Just as we have a compelling interest in preserving the life of a viable fetus, we have a compelling interest in protecting the women involved.

I am not trying to argue that there are no circumstances where a woman should be allowed to have an abortion after viability. However, the decision to abort should be based on the government's interest, at least one, possibly more, medical expert's opinion, and the woman. The medical expert(s) and the government must make an informed decision together to determine whether or not the fetus is truly viable and would not suffer upon childbirth, while protecting the woman from a relatively risky procedure. The government has a "compelling state interest" in protect all human life forms that have the potential to survive and; therefore, woman should not have the rights to abortion that they receive prior to fetal viability.
Grant84football

Con

Grant84football forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Free_Th1nker

Pro

I maintain my position.
Grant84football

Con

Grant84football forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Free_Th1nker

Pro

With my last round, I would like to encourage those who click on this poll to vote pro on the basis that con provided no arguments.

I am more than willing to repost this debate to anyone who wishes to debate the topic.
Grant84football

Con

Grant84football forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by StopBabyKilling 2 years ago
StopBabyKilling
Hmm. Banks and most other corporations that,contribute to politicians contribute to all sides, hedging their bet towards,getting favoritism and influence , no matter who wins.

It seems you do not have the history of Clinton since she was Bill's First Lady. She pushed hard to promote a health care law, when her husband was defaming the office, that was even more harmful, tyrannical, cost rocketing, and enslaving than Obamcare - as hard as that is to believe. She has been a radical lefty,since since her years as a 60's radical graduate from Wellesley, one of the greatest liberal Notheast brainwashing machines, and supported all of the card carrying socialist and political correctness drivel of the time.
Posted by StopBabyKilling 2 years ago
StopBabyKilling
Science, reason, rationality, logic, and also compassion all support the proposition that there is no more reason to kill a baby before viability,than after viability, at birth, after birth, or at any age.
Posted by Free_Th1nker 2 years ago
Free_Th1nker
lol Hillary Clinton is not a radical leftist...her speeches are funded by big banks.

Abortion isn't killing by the way, at least not in my opinion (which is backed by science, reason, rationality, and logic) until viability.
Posted by StopBabyKilling 2 years ago
StopBabyKilling
No other SCOTUS decision has caused the killing of 60 million American babies since 1972.

I am undecided as to the wisdom of the decision in the Citzens United case, but pro for the SCOTUS decision is that the actions of corporations are determined by the votes of their stock holders, who are citizens and should have the same right to express their political views as any other subset of citizens, corporations or not, say the NRA, NAACP, AFLCIO, SEIU, NARAL, MSNBC, FOX, Catholics, Muslims, WASPS.

As a practical matter, in one of the acts which was the subject of the case, allowing a corporation to release a propaganda film promoting the big spender, big Government control hawk, failed Secretary of State, and corrupt radical leftist Hillary Clinton, wouild be a great disservice to Americans.
Posted by Free_Th1nker 2 years ago
Free_Th1nker
I would sincerely disagree that Roe v Wade is the greatest mistake of SCOTUS, and that it was not a mistake at all. As for a terrible decision made by SCOTUS, the first example that comes to mind is the Citizens United Decision of 2010.
Posted by StopBabyKilling 2 years ago
StopBabyKilling
Hmm. I do not get the point of whether they are comparable. The point is, the Supreme Court makes serious mistakes, and its Roe v Wade decision is the worst.
Posted by Free_Th1nker 2 years ago
Free_Th1nker
Right, because slavery and abortion are certainly comparable.
Posted by StopBabyKilling 2 years ago
StopBabyKilling
The reason that,there is debate about abortion is that many people feel that the Roe v Way was decided incorrectly. A Supreme Court,decision,,does,not automatically end debate or mean those who oppose the decision,are incorrect., Many,Supreme Court decisions have been obviated, including its pre-Civil War ruling that a slave has no rights.

Regardless of the,flawed Roe v Wade decision, a baby in the,womb is still a baby, whether or not you call it a fetus, and killing her, like any other baby, is murder.
Posted by Free_Th1nker 2 years ago
Free_Th1nker
Actually, it doesn't. Bodily integrity does not apply to a fetus with some exceptions when it reaches viability.

You really need to read Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood. Like it or not, this is how we handle abortion.
Posted by StopBabyKilling 2 years ago
StopBabyKilling
The bodily integrity argument has a built in contradiction. Bodily integrity is highly valued for everyone, including the person with the most at stake, the target of the act, the baby woman being killed. The bodily integrity of the woman in the womb is violated wholly, violently,and permanently by its abortion.

Consider the concept that a baby in the womb should have the same rights respecting her care and body as babies outside the womb. Killing a baby outside the womb, regardless of its condition or "defects", so too should be the killing of the baby in the womb. end-abortion.com
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Free_Th1nkerGrant84footballTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
Free_Th1nkerGrant84footballTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF