The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
EdificeMD
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

if both healthy baby and endangerd mother can be saved... baby should not be allowed to be aborted

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 1 vote the winner is...
EdificeMD
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 766 times Debate No: 24218
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

in cases where mother's life is at risk, but the healthy baby can be safely removed instead of aborted... and thus both mother and child saaved, this should be required. abortion should not be an option.

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 including me 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.
EdificeMD

Con

I will be arguing against the notion that if "both healthy baby and endangerd mother can be saved... baby should not be allowed to be aborted"

I must first say that there are many discrepancies attributed to this argument. It is because of these discrepancies that a blanket ban of abortion (which is basically what my opponent is arguing for) would be an irresponsible and dangerous solution to an uncommon problem.

I can only assume that since my opponent is arguing that Abortion should be disallowed if there's a chance to save the endangered mother, that they must also be arguing that Abortion should be outlawed in cases that pose absolutely no danger to the mother.

Regarding this statement: "after six months or so, abortion in the US is restricted to only cases involving health of the mother," I'm not entirely sure what this means. After six months of what? Please clarify.

My opponent argues that: "healthy babies are too often aborted in the name of saving the mother, when labor could be induced or [sic] teh baby somehow otherwise simply removed, instead of abortion." This point is rendered invalid by her previous statement: "if even a healthy baby MUST be aborted to save the mother, msot including me would agree it's the right thing to do. to be sure,"

My opponent's argument is not that the health of the baby trumps the well-being of the mother, therefore the health of the baby is irrelevant.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
EdificeMD

Con

Refer to Round 1
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
EdificeMD

Con

EdificeMD forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Doulos1202 4 years ago
Doulos1202
only 4.7% of rape victims actually become pregnant, not sure why people think that there is so much weight behind that argument.
Posted by waterskier 4 years ago
waterskier
what about when she is raped and has to live with a constant reminder of that moment for 9 months?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
dairygirl4u2cEdificeMDTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited less.