The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Leroy_J
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

doctors who perform illegal abortions for trivial reason are essentially the same as serial muderers

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...
Leroy_J
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 330 times Debate No: 78295
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

they both murder regularly and the killing goes against society's standard of right and wrong.

for example. a woman wants to go to a rock concert but needs an abortion to enjoy it properly (real life example), but her time has passed for a legal abortion. the doctor who does this is essentially a murderer.

start round 1 with arguments.
Leroy_J

Con

Arguments & Questions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi. First of all I'd like to introduce myself, my name is Marty. Personally, I am pro-choice however I don't let this get in the way of an objective opionion based on evidence.

1) To start lets have a look at death, it is almost indisputable that life ends when brain activity ceases to exist. By this logic, it is very reasonable to say that life also starts when brain activity starts or when conciousness sets in from this. It is generally accepted that this occurs at around 8-14 weeks [1]. Before this period, it is simply a group of cells undergoing reproduction as they are coded to do and there is evidence most of the more advanced neural pathways (i.e. pain & memory) aren't formed until much later. In many occasions illegal abortions are done for the health of the mother if medically trained professionals decide it would be seriously detrimental to the mother's life and well being.

2) I'd like to define what you mean by illegal abortions too, do you mean ones which need approval. Which country and state so I know relevant laws.

3) Never the less, how is one to define trivial when it comes to the life of others and when abortions are involved, what reasons would be trivial. Is it viable to "ruin" ones possibly more lives when it can be prevented. I don't believe it is appropriate for judgment to be placed on the individuals nor the doctors based on choices they are making which will affect the rest of your life.

4) What are your objections to these abortions if any?

5) To address the actual topic, I believe they can be separated due to the legal term 'mens rea' which translates to guilty mind. In this case the intentions of the doctor would be for benefit of the mother (or child or family), another life (shouldn't one life be equal to another?). Where as serial murderers are psychologically damaged and their actions have no benefit.

Looking forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

"what reasons would be trivial. Is it viable to "ruin" ones possibly more lives when it can be prevented. I don't believe it is appropriate for judgment to be placed on the individuals nor the doctors based on choices they are making which will affect the rest of your life."

the statement is stand alone self evident. if something is considered trivial, then the doctor shouldn't be doing it. im sure they wouldn't do it if they thought it was trivial, but this is about looking for a more objective status of the act. surely we can place judgment on the situation for how we perceive it. like the example given, the mom wanted to go to a rock concert so had an illegal abortion.

"To address the actual topic, I believe they can be separated due to the legal term 'mens rea' which translates to guilty mind. In this case the intentions of the doctor would be for benefit of the mother (or child or family), another life (shouldn't one life be equal to another?). Where as serial murderers are psychologically damaged and their actions have no benefit."

im sure conspirators who want to kill a third party in terms of adults, might not feel their act is wrongful. with abortion and with a conspirator sitatuion of adults, it takes away the consent of the person being killed. it kills an innocent third party, bottom line.
Leroy_J

Con

1) Doctors still have to follow the law, where I am from, abortions are legal up to a certain week, depends on the state. I think the situation you provided is unreasonable and I'd like proper evidence of it happening for trivial reasons. I presume this situation is hypothetical and a reasonable person would think that if they want an abortion to go to a rock concert, they probably would have gotten one earlier. It would be a huge risk to the doctors career performing illegal operations and unless you have contrary evidence, I would doubt they would risk their job over a trivial reason if it was illegal.

2) "im sure conspirators who want to kill a third party in terms of adults, might not feel their act is wrongful." Do you have evidence of such? In this case, the community agrees that a life has been taken and the rights of the individual have been breached. In the terms of an unborn baby, you've mentioned the words "killed an innocent third party". This would only be looked upon as wrong if you consider the baby to be a person. I argue that the baby is not fully formed and hasn't been born yet and in almost all cases would not have proper brain function and would not be immoral to abort the pregnancy. Doctors of all people would have the proper recognised training to understand what stage the baby is in.

Further more, I think you have simplified the situation too much, 1st to agree they are serial murderers we have to agree it is murder which I think it wouldn't be classed as murder for the reasons above, they are without the vital functions of a fully developed human. 2nd they do not have the same mental state, I think you'd be hard pressed to find this theoretical doctor who disregards human life as serial murderers do but rather argue that life hasn't even begun. It is a question of morality and the general public would agree that doctors who flick the switch on comatose patients are different than serial killers however according to your logic they are the same.

There are a couple of points of mine that you didn't answer last round too.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

http://www.operationrescue.org...

that is an example of the abortion to go to a rock concert.

if the it is illegal to do hte abortion the baby must have rights, which means its a person. you might not like calling it a person, but it is.

if the abortion is illegal it must be later in the pregnancy, that means the brain waves are there as even you concede. i assume con is just being sloppy on this point as he's trying to act as if the brain waves arent there.

the doctor might not view his killing as wrong, and different than killing an adult. but society as determined the abortion is illegal, and the baby must be too similar to an adult as to not justify an abortion. you and the doctor can cry about itall you want, but society and reality have spoken.
Leroy_J

Con

If it is approved, then it isn't illegal though. There wouldn't be procedures in place without a reason to do so. About brain activity, perhaps, it depends on how late in the pregnancy it would be. It is not as if they don't go in front of a medical review board to see if an abortion is viable. Abortion if approved, isn't illegal even if it is after that date that is the point of the approval. I think you'd find that the society is split on the morality of abortions, a lot of this split for pro-life is due to religion and it is slowly moving towards pro choice, I refer you to this debate.org opinion issue (http://www.debate.org...). Instead of performing an ad hominem fallacy, it'd be preferred if you stuck to the original debate and argument. I don't disagree that it is of the human species but whether it is moral to abort or not is completely different. It is obviously a different case if the baby is closer to being born that is why these laws are in place. I don't disagree with the laws, I think they are just. If there is an approval process then it has been reviewed to apply to the laws based on the current social view on the topic. I still think that it is a long shot to call doctors, serial killers and the view of society as shown above is that most people view is as okay within reason. To call doctors, serial killers, it reads as a media headline, exaggerating the truth. Serial killers have obvious mental issues, I can't say that I nor the rest of the population could say the same about doctors.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by joetheripper117 1 year ago
joetheripper117
dairygirl4u2cLeroy_JTied
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: Con showed significant difference between serial killers and abortion doctors who do their job for trivial reasons.
Vote Placed by Greg4586 1 year ago
Greg4586
dairygirl4u2cLeroy_JTied
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: Con had a very good argument that we proclaim someone dead when they have active brainwaves, so it only makes sense to say someone is not alive until they have active brainwaves. Pro never really appropriately rebuts this statement or gives a real argument as to why it's wrong besides saying this: "if the it is illegal to do hte abortion the baby must have rights, which means its a person. you might not like calling it a person, but it is."With this Pro hasn't really proved that the fetus is in fact a person, because it could be illegal for many other reasons including it being dangerous for the mother. Also Pro never really clarified what an "illegal abortion" is, so I can't really give him the benefit of the doubt here. Pro's rebuttal really doesn't rebut or properly combat cons initial statement that a fetus is not a person. So because of this Con wins that the fetus is not a person, and therefore abortion is not murder. Because of this Con wins the debate.