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

if a healthy infant can be saved instead of aborted later in pregnancy... it should be requried

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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...
Stephen_Hawkins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,192 times Debate No: 24205
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

in cases where mother's life is at risk, but the healthy baby can be safely removed instead of aborted... this should be required.

after six months or so, abortion in the US is restricted to only cases involving health of the mother. (to be sure, this includes much abuse for 'mental health' etc) if even a healthy baby MUST be aborted to save the mother, msot would agree it's the right thing to do. to be sure, however.... healthy babies are too often aborted in the name of saving the mother, when labor could be induced or teh baby somehow otherwise simply removed, instead of abortion
the mother shouldn't have the option to abort a healthy baby when it can jsut be removed.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

I accept. As my opponent initiated the debate, is PRO, is challenging the status quo and is as of yet to provide any argument, the burden of proof is on them. In case they do not understand the purpose of this post, it is to establish that, unless there is an actual reason to do so, changing legislation is wrong. I await my opponent to form an argument.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

actually, i made the argument in the last post. i pointed that that even if it's for the purpsoes of saving the mtoher, healthy babies are often aborted, even though the baby could have been jsut removed from the mother, induced labor etc.... instead of abortion.
obviously legislation would have to be formed to reflect all this, that we are taking into consideration the rights of healthy babies.
to stress aagin, i am not saying we should stop abortions when it is absolutely necessary to save the life of the mother, even if the baby is healthy.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con


This argument by my opponent does not follow. "a healthy infant can must always be saved instead of aborted" is a paraphrase of the motion. My opponent's argument is that sometimes it is better to save the child than abort it. This does not follow in all cases. If I can show a case where a child should be aborted instead of attempted to be saved in a pregnancy, then I have succeeded in negating the motion.

The equal value of humanity

Let's say there are two people: the mother and the child. Either can be saved. If there is an abortion, the mother certainly lives. If there is no abortion, the mother certainly dies, whilst the child will live, due to stress of the early pregnancy, or lack of expertise, or something along those lines. Is it required to save the child in this circumstance? I would say not.

What are the chances

Let's take the analogy further. Let's say there is no midwife, or anyone who can help deliver the baby early. The technology in the vicinity for delivering the baby is incredibly bad. But there just so happens to be an abortion specialist nearby, and he has the equipment on him. Now, the chances are roughly calculated by a passing genius of the medical mathematical profession. He works out that it is roughly 99% chance of survival for the woman and none for the child if an abortion occurs, but if no abortion occurs, there is a 1% chance of either the mother or child surviving. However, the child can survive, and can be saved. But in 98 of 100 cases, both shall die. Or we can change the numbers to 0.001% chance for either to give a 999,998 chance in 1 million of both dying. Is it justified to risk both lives so recklessly due to this survival? Of course not. Or let's take the repeatedly occurring scenario of ages past where if the child survives, the mother will die, and vice versa. Is there any reason to value the child over the mother? Of course not: the legislation proposed is ridiculous.

The inequal value of humanity

Let's say the mother is a well known researcher on the verge of curing cancer. All her data is protected by password lock that cannot be accessed, and shall be deleted if she can't save it. Or she 'knows' the cure for cancer. Is it OK to let her die? I think not. Or let's say the woman is a political prisoner, and if she dies, the people will riot and kill others and cause millions of pounds of damage. Is it OK to let her die for the child to live? Of course not.

I have shown through these cases plausible scenarios where the abortion of healthy foetuses is justified. But I want to go further. My opponent states that healthy 'babies' are aborted, implyng that these foetueses have personal worth.

On a separate tack altogether, my opponent has not justified why these foetuses should be allowed the rights and liberties of fully fledged moral members of the community. In facI would claim that foetuses, as they cannot contribute, or act, or even survive independently or rationally think or communicate, do not this label of being purely 'children' and 'people'. My opponent has not justified either why they are worth the same amount as fully fledged moral members of the community.

In light of all of this evidence, I urge a towards CON.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

"Let's say there are two people: the mother and the child. Either can be saved. If there is an abortion, the mother certainly lives. If there is no abortion, the mother certainly dies, whilst the child will live, due to stress of the early pregnancy, or lack of expertise, or something along those lines. Is it required to save the child in this circumstance? I would say not."

I never said the child should be saved if it's an either or between mother and child.... in fact I said I disagree with this notion.

"Let's take the analogy further. Let's say there is no midwife, or anyone who can help deliver the baby early. The technology in the vicinity for delivering the baby is incredibly bad. But there just so happens to be an abortion specialist nearby, and he has the equipment on him. Now, the chances are roughly calculated by a passing genius of the medical mathematical profession. He works out that it is roughly 99% chance of survival for the woman and none for the child if an abortion occurs, but if no abortion occurs, there is a 1% chance of either the mother or child surviving. However, the child can survive, and can be saved. But in 98 of 100 cases, both shall die. Or we can change the numbers to 0.001% chance for either to give a 999,998 chance in 1 million of both dying. Is it justified to risk both lives so recklessly due to this survival? Of course not. Or let's take the repeatedly occurring scenario of ages past where if the child survives, the mother will die, and vice versa. Is there any reason to value the child over the mother? Of course not: the legislation proposed is ridiculous."

Con is forcing ridiculous hypotheticals in an attempt to confuse the issue that don't even have to do with what is proposed. All this boils down to is.... if it's possoible to save both the mother, and a healthy baby, we should do both. the mother shouldn't have a right to abort a healthy baby simply because her life is at risk if she carries the pregnancy.... eg, we remove the baby.

" In facI would claim that foetuses, as they cannot contribute, or act, or even survive independently or rationally think or communicate, do not this label of being purely 'children' and 'people'"

If the baby is healthy as i said, then they can survive independently. And if that's the case... the only thing separating them from "normal" people, is the birth canal, and a fractional matter of the mom's womb. it's meaningless and a mere technicality to say the lcation matters.
Here is what Con is proposing. B has a baby at eight months. C still has a baby in her womb at eight months. B kills the baby she just had. C waits two weeks and has an abortion (her life was in danger, but both mother and child could have been saved). B is guilty of murder, and C isn't even though C's baby was further along and both were healthy babies?
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

At this point, I'd usually pose an argument. However, I want to focus on a single point my opponent made, which shows the concession by my opponent.

"I never said the child should be saved if it's an either or between mother and child.... in fact I said I disagree with this notion."

I'd look at what this statement says: my opponent has essentially conceded the debate. The motion was that In cases where the mother's life is at risk, but the healthy baby can be saved instead of aborted...it should be required [to be saved]." This is a blatant concession of the debate. For this, I urge a vote CON. I also would take the spelling in R2 into account.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Roy, how do you feel about people changing the resolution inside the actual debating period?
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
I understood the resolution to be "if a late-term healthy baby must be either delivered prematurely or aborted in order to save the life of the mother, premature delivery should be required." Pro's argument was that this is self-evident based upon the survival of the healthy infant at no increased risk to the mother.

The question is that with Pro's S&G being so poor, can Con be faulted for not understanding what the debate was about? It is Pro's responsibility to write a clear resolution, and while it wasn't very clear the question remains whether it was clear enough. I'm saying it was clear enough, and that Con didn't try hard enough to parse it. If it was in doubt, he shouldn't have taken the debate.

Con's strained counter-example was not responsive, so Pro's weak case remained standing. Pro should have cited the Supreme court decision that the fetus gained potential rights after the first trimester, etc. But a weak case stands nonetheless.
Posted by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
... so under pro's proposal, if a mother has a choice between:

a) an abortion, where the unborn child dies and the mother has a 99.9% chance of survival, or
b) an operation with a 5% chance of the child's survival and 1% chance of the mother's survival

Pro would FORCE the mother to choose option b? Just to be clear I understand this correctly.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
dairygirl4u2cStephen_HawkinsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Tough one. See comments.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
dairygirl4u2cStephen_HawkinsTied
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: Pro argued against the resolution.