The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
miloisqueer
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

essentially the same thing: tiller's illegal late term abortions, and someone killing two year olds

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 177 times Debate No: 81698
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

essentially the same thing: tiller's illegal late term abortions, and someone killing two year olds

tiller is a man who did late term abortions, of viable babies, for trivial reasons. one example is he killed a baby at 26 weeks because the mom wanted to go to a rock concert. he did not comply with rules that determine how to determine viability, etc.


the next hypothetical says that a man is killing two year olds illegally.

how is it different to be doing illegal abortions, than someone killing two year olds? it's essentially the same thing.

for that reason, if we see that politics and law aren't working to stop the two year old killer, we should engage in defense of others and shoot the man killing the children. in teh same manner, at least when he's doing those illegal abortions mentioned, we should engage in defesnse of others of the babies being aborted, at least right before the abortion occurs.

how are these situations different?
if you use the soverignty of the mom... how is it not her fault that she didnt abort earlier when morally grayer (even the law recognizes no absolute right), and how not her fault that she is at least partially responsible for the child's existance etc?

please say how these situations are different.
miloisqueer

Con

Though late-term abortions are certainly an inhumane solution to the problem many women face in unwanted children, I would disagree that it is comparable to killing a child who has taken its first breath. Up to a certain point, I believe that a fetus is simply a ball of un-cognizant cells. You cited an abortion performed at 26 weeks, which is only just into the third trimester--The fetus being discussed would certainly be viable as a fetus, but I don't see that its human status would be insured as of yet. Of course, if the woman did indeed get the procedure for the purpose of going to a concert, that's quite despicable. However, seeing as your evidence remains uncited, I can't be sure whether your facts are indeed facts.

The murder of a two year old child is horrific, for the following reasons:
I. At the age of two, a child has moved past the instinct-based life of an infant. S/he makes menial decisions and is truly discovering how to be a human being.
2. The child has become more-or-less understanding of his/her surroundings and the people in his/her life.

The phenomenal difference that occurs in two years is absolutely immeasurable, and can't be diminished to the eviction of a lump of vaguely-human cells.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con says at one point it's just a lump of cells but at other points says it's advanced enough to warrant distinction in late pregnancy. i'll just put this in the category of you being inconsistent.

the only distinguishing point you make is how advanced the two year old is compared to the unborn baby. if the mother decided to give early birth to that baby though, it would be protected by law. to be sure, it is advanced enough that it is protectable aside from the arbitrary point of where the baby is in relation to the mother.
if con had used the mother's autonomy at least he would have made an arguable distinction. as it sits now, he has no reason aside from the arbitrary location of hte baby to say it's not developed enough yet, when had it been born instead of terminated, by law it would have been advanced enough.
miloisqueer

Con

If pro had in fact read my argument, he would have seen that I said that a fetus was a ball of cells up to a certain point. However, yes, at that "certain point" the fleshy mass does become something more viable. This still, however, does not qualify as a human being. If a child could survive in "early birth" as you said, then certainly, don't abort it. But I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing the debate you set forth as the beginning. Let's stick to the topic, shall we? Don't distract my attention to something menial or arbitrary, it's quite dull.

Furthermore, pointing out arguments I could have made is not advancing the debate--It's in fact helping me.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

at 26 weeks the baby is viable, can live on its own. so hte whole blob of cells stuff is moot. the only reason i mentioend it hte way i did is because in that last post i responded to con ended with comparing it to a blob. con seems to say if it's late in the pregnancy dont abort? okay, that's my point. it's essentially the same as killing a two year old. con basically conceded the debate?
miloisqueer

Con

miloisqueer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.