The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
mbm16
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

a pregnant woman should not always be able to have an abortion

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...
mbm16
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/18/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 854 times Debate No: 56804
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

please note: most sane commentators to this debate say i am giving myself too much discretion, that it's not fair for that reason. i use the word 'not always' which means sometimes the woman should be able to abort. despite this, there are tons who have knee jerk responses and dont even negate that the woman shouldnt always have access to an abortion. not sure how they often win despite that, but.

so, for this debate, you must accept that a woman should be able to abort a week before her due date, even if she doesn't have a commonly thought of exception, like rape or mother's health.
if you don't accept that don't take the debate.

at least later in the pregnancy... sometiems a pregnant woman should not be able to abort. a mother assumed the risk of pregnancy, and then, she assumed the risk of carrying the child for many months.

to be clear, i'm focusing on later in pregnancy. but there (and earlier but again not the point being debated), an argument could be made that she forfeits her right to not be pregnant by assuming that risk. much like... if you cause an accident, and the victim's body is somehow temporarily attached to your body, hypothetically speaking... a reasonable person would say the tortfeasor must at least wait a few months until they can be separated.

that analogy could be extended to later in pregnancy, and then topped off with the fact that she didn't bother to terminate when it was more debatable whether it's a person or not. (if it's debatable, who should decide? the government? why not the mother who is more proximate?) when it was morally grayer.

later in the pregnancy though, it's not debatable about person hood. if there's no significant health or life or very very significant emotional problems, or perhaps an issue or rape, aborting the infant in the womb is no different than aborting it when it is born. the only difference, that the mother is hindered, is trumped by the risks she assumed, and that leaves nothing to justify abortion later in the pregnancy if an exception doesn't apply.
mbm16

Con

I'll try to keep my opening remarks short.
A pregnant woman should always have the right to an abortion, regardless of the stage of her pregnancy.
My reasoning for this position is threefold:
1) Conservative media has played up the issue of abortion, claiming that life begins at the moment of conception and that ALL cases of abortion are also cases of homicide. This is untrue. Genuine human life begins the moment a baby is born, not a day before then, not a trimester before then, and certainly not nine months before then. Late term abortions, therefore, cause no distress, damage, or pain to the unborn fetus.
2) Second, and more importantly, women have been suppressed by the patriarchies that manifest in most modern nations. For middle-aged white men to limit a women's right to an abortion in any way is nothing short of arbitrary. Women - not their government - should have complete control over their own bodies. People who deny women their right to late-term abortions provoke patriarchal tendencies (by which men have ALL the say in a country's doings) and diminish the rights of women. Simply, if you don't like late-term abortions, don't get one.
3) This leads me to my third reason: the simple fact of the matter is one cannot prevent a women from getting an abortion, for if a women decides for herself that an abortion is the only route to take, nothing can stop her from terminating her pregnancy. If an abortion is what she wants, an abortion is what she will get, whether it be carried through by a doctor or by a coat hanger. If such is the case (rest assured, it is) then wouldn't it make sense to give women the safest option possible, an abortion?
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

did you read my initial post? you have to be willing to accept that abortion a week before the due date is okay, even if a commonly thought of exception doesn't apply. yet, you state that with late term abortions, they don't feel pain etc? does a new born feel pain? of course they do. does the inch or two between being in the womb or not make a difference about pain? of course not. your point is just wrong.

you didn't address some major points: 1. assumption of the risk of pregnancy, assumption of the risk of carrying the pregnancy so far along that she didn't abort sooner when morally grayer etc 2. the hypothetical of a person who causes an accident and the victim can't unattach themselves from the wrong doer for months. no sane person would say the victim should be able to be terminated.

why would we legalize the latest most trivially based abortions, just because the mother might do it anyway? it's like legalizing murder just because people are going to do it anyways, so we might as well make it clean etc?
mbm16

Con

Let me start by assuring you that I am, indeed, a clinically sane person.
And, in MY initial post, I stipulated very clearly that abortion a week before the due date was okay; I even went insofar as saying an abortion a day before a due date was okay.
I will respond to your rebuttals in order:
1) "yet, you state that with late term abortions, they don't feel pain etc?" you have any idea how late term abortions are performed? Do you just assume that abortionists take to the womb with machetes? They don't. In reality, the few late-term abortionists in the United States utilize the "MOLD" technique, MOLD standing for four drugs, Misoprostol, Oxytocin, Laminaria, and Digoxin, that are injected into a fetus throughout the course of several days. The fetus is dead by the time it is extracted, as soon as misoprostol is injected into the fetus to stop the heart. Does the baby feel the needle? Sure. Does the needle introduce a level of pain to such an extent the abortion could be considered inhumane? Absolutely and invariably not.
2) "you didn't address some major points: 1. assumption of the risk of pregnancy, assumption of the risk of carrying the pregnancy so far along that she didn't abort sooner when morally grayer."
It does not and SHOULD NOT matter the reasons a woman has for getting an abortion. You clearly operate under the opinion that abortions are morally reprehensible. I disagree. As previously stated, fetuses do not feel an excessive amount of pain when undergoing termination. Then I pose this question: What makes an abortion, namely a late-term abortion, so morally unjust?
3) "why would we legalize the latest most trivially based abortions, just because the mother might do it anyway? it's like legalizing murder just because people are going to do it anyways, so we might as well make it clean etc?"
I take HUGE issue with this statement. Clearly, you disregard all the possible scenarios in which an abortion would be the most logical decision for a woman. Do you think women actually have unprotected sex knowing they can just kill their baby nine months down the road? That is almost NEVER the case. As I stated in my previous argument, women who need abortions will stop at no lengths to get one. When late term abortions are attacked as vehemently as they are in the United States (I encourage you to look into the murder of late term abortionist George Tiller) women will do what they need to do to terminate their pregnancy. Therefore, it only makes sense to make sure these abortions are performed in such a professional manner that the fetus does NOT feel pain, and that a woman does not harm herself in trying to perform her own abortion.
In addition, I would like to pose the following question: what makes a woman want to have an abortion?
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

that the doctor might use pain killers etc doesn't detract from the fact that he has killed the baby and the other arguments we are having.

you didn't address the second point in the things that i pointed out that you didn't respond to: "2. the hypothetical of a person who causes an accident and the victim can't unattach themselves from the wrong doer for months. no sane person would say the victim should be able to be terminated."

"In addition, I would like to pose the following question: what makes a woman want to have an abortion?"

i acknolwedge that late term abortions esepcially are done by far for health reasons of the mother and such. but, this debate we are focusing on late term, so late as even a week before the due date... and a commonly thought of exception like mother's health doesn't apply. you seem to indicating that's all fine and dandy.

"why would we legalize the latest most trivially based abortions, just because the mother might do it anyway? it's like legalizing murder just because people are going to do it anyways, so we might as well make it clean etc?"

you said you take huge issue with this statement, but didn't really distinguish it other than to say it is usually a tough situation for women. but, as i just pointed out, we are talking about anything that i would see as tough if a commonly thought exception doesn't apply. so how is it different?

and you didn't really specifcally address that she assumed the carrying for so long point. doesn't that matter at all? you seem to just say 'no' without any notable reasons.

why is it not okay to kill a second outside the womb, when a second earlier inside the woman it was anything goes? the people who were to terminate are now to rush to save the baby?
especially a week before due date, couldnt you just make inducing labor the mother's only choice? why should be be able to kill when she can just remove?
aren't you just basically advocating blatant murder?
mbm16

Con

Yup, I just LOVE advocating the death of babies.

"you said you take huge issue with this statement, but didn't really distinguish it other than to say it is usually a tough situation for women. but, as i just pointed out, we are talking about anything that i would see as tough if a commonly thought exception doesn't apply. so how is it different?"

Well, I am telling you that there is rarely a situation in which a woman receives an abortion to which a "commonly thought exception" does not apply. It is my firm claim that there is nothing morally unjust with receiving an abortion, for any case whatsoever. This assertion is contingent upon the facts that aborted fetuses feel minimal pain, and that it should be a woman's right to chose what she does with her own body. As I stated before, it SHOULD NOT matter the stage of a fetus's development when an abortion takes place because a fetus is NOT A LIVING HUMAN BEING until it has been birthed. In making late-term abortions morally and legally unjust, the rights of women are being stripped; they should have singular authority over what they do with their bodies.

"why is it not okay to kill a second outside the womb, when a second earlier inside the woman it was anything goes? the people who were to terminate are now to rush to save the baby?
especially a week before due date, couldnt you just make inducing labor the mother's only choice? why should be be able to kill when she can just remove?
aren't you just basically advocating blatant murder?"

Let me ask you, what was your favorite memory as an unborn fetus? You probably don't have one. Why? Because until right before being birthed, you had no experience of life, you had no memories, no emotions. You knew nothing. Therefore, you are not eviscerating one's livelihood in terminating a pregnancy - you are simply extracting an unconscious fetus. So, no, I am not advocating blatant murder. It seems, though, that you are advocating the blatant oppression of women, and the nationalization of uteruses.

And lastly, I respond to your signature metaphor, or "hypothetical" as you call it. The mere fact of the matter is that you can't victimize something that is not living. Biologically, one of the requirements of life is a degree of independence. Therefore, you can't say that a woman is a moral haphazard for wanting to terminate her pregnancy. You need to accept the fact that there is a difference between a fetus and a newborn.

Through this debate, you have shown little scientific evidence, and have ignored all the reasons a woman would have for receiving an abortion. It is therefore evident that women should hold the inalienable right to receive an abortion at any point.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
pro
Posted by mbm16 2 years ago
mbm16
"tiller committed murders as well, even by legal standards, as i cited."
Give me the name of the law that supposedly incriminated George Tiller.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
so yes.... you actually do advocate murder, very much so. and advocate it millions of times more than i do.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
they are not legal persons, only... and only sometimes. again you openly advocate that a woman should be able to abort a baby for no commonly thought of exception a week before her due date. if people actually did what you think they should be able to do, it would be murder. the law and rational people view them to be 'persons' and golly gee, 'babies' and 'living'. tiller committed murders as well, even by legal standards, as i cited.

if it were legal to kill two year olds, but sometimes not, you can guarnatee that there would be vigilanteeism for at the very least those times where it isn't legal. in its essence, this is really no difference this analogy and what tiller did.
Posted by mbm16 2 years ago
mbm16
They are not babies, they are fetuses.
Tiller was a living, breathing, person that people (such as his family) relied on. Killing him
Homicide should never be advocated.
You can't "kill" something that was never living.

My beliefs are irrational? YOU ADVOCATE MURDER! I DON'T!
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
what is wrong with me? what is wrong with you? you explicitly advocate that a woman should be able to abort a baby a week before her due date, for not commonly thought of exception. just because she wants to.

i know it doesn't happen a lot, that type of stuff, but it does. it is entirely fair to ball park it at a million. so... take what you perceive as reprehensible shooting of tiller, and magnify that times a million., just to get an idea of how atrocious your beliefs (and borderline irrational, really) are.
Posted by mbm16 2 years ago
mbm16
You literally advocate the death of LIVING PEOPLE. Unborn fetuses are not living people. George Tiller was! He had a wife and kids who relied on him, and you claim that he deserved death! What is wrong with you?!?
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
no but at least i dont wish death upon thousands if not millions of babies. (you may not specifically want them dead, but given you want what the woman wants, you essentially do)

it's as disturbing as it is appalling. if you find wanting that abortion doctor dead to be atrocious, multiple that by at least a million to get an idea of where you fall.
Posted by mbm16 2 years ago
mbm16
Well at least I don't wish death on living people who dedicate their lives to helping women. :)
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
nope, sounds like you are, sir
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Manastacious 2 years ago
Manastacious
dairygirl4u2cmbm16Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Sourcing and Conduct: Tied. Easy enough. S/G: Pro does an awful job with this. Any one who read the entire debate should easily knock this against Pro. Argument: the argumentation on the Pro side was difficult enough to get through wile attempting to navigate the S/G errors. However, the logic and organization coming from the pro is horrendous. Pro does not do enough to negate Con premise that life does not begin until birth. At that point, Pro is unable to gain any ground in their argumentation. The Con wins the day.
Vote Placed by neutral 2 years ago
neutral
dairygirl4u2cmbm16Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Th simple fact of the matter is that abortion is itself a moral question. Con lost this by essentially failing to make the moral argument save to state that, in their opinion, it ALWAYS moral - our opinions are not the defining characteristic of morality - inartistic value, logical consequences, etc. are all a part of parcel of the moral argument. Although I have some sympathy, as abortion is the fundamental cross between individual freedom and choice, which we have sent Soldiers to die and protect that right, and the right to life, which, curiously, we have sent Soldiers off to die to protect that right too. There is a moral component to this choice, and most people, regardless of their stance on abortion, get very concerned about the moral questions of things like partial birth abortions, wherein the difference between a live baby (murder) and abortion is razor thin. No actual moral argument about this was made, and opinions? Everyone has them.