if healthy baby can be removed, and mother is fine too, abortion should not be allowed
Debate Rounds (3)
after six months of pregnancy 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 or trivial reasons, 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.
But it is not always wrong to kill. If you attack me, for example, I am justified in defending myself, even if that means your death. Violence is justified against invaders. If you break into my home, I can expel me from my property. And just as my home is my property, so is my body my property. The property owner is the absolute ruler of their property, and just as I can expel you from my home if you remain there without my consent, so a mother is the absolute ruler of her body, and can expel the invader - the baby - from her body if she wishes. The mother owns her body and the child is welcome to live there only so long as she wills it. The state does not own the mother's body, and thus has no right to regulate how she may use it, or who she may let live inside of her. By saying that the state - in reality, some bureaucrat, or judge, or cop - can dictate to a mother what she can or cannot do with her body, you are really saying that the mother is the slave to the judge, or cop, or bureaucrat, that it is the bureaucrats body and he will instruct the mother on how she may use his property (her self).
even with self defense or defending one's body... no one has an absolute right to kill someone just because tehy are on their property etc. the baby is not about to kill the mom in these later term abortions we are talking about. if a robber were somehow attached to your house, you wouldnt be allowed to kill them just because they wouldnt leave. couldnt leave.
not only that... even the law recognizes no absolute right to the mother as even con seems to be saying. the law says at late term abortions the mothers life must be at risk, no abso.ute right. the law i am contending just does not go far enough, it doesnt require the baby to be removed safely, if possible. cops come to get robbers if needed, we can have people get these babies too.
the law is justified in those late term cases and here too in not extending absolute right. the mother is at least partialy responsible for the baby's existence in her body, and she did not abort earlier when it was morally grayer whether the baby was a person or a living human being etc. that makes her responsiblity even more, even to the extent that she does ot have absolute right. by law already, and i'd contend even to the point that she can't just decide to kill it even if it's healthy and could live outside the mom.
the police don't come and shoot trespassers on your property, they come and tak them away. same should be done w babies.
and the law doesn't allow an absolute to the fullest extent right elsewehre. so why here? again you cant kill someone if they were surgicablly attached to a building on your land. why here? espeically if it wasn't permanent, just temporary. and even espeically if the person could just be removed.
you said why shoudl they be expected to carry to term? im not even arguing that. im just arging they should be safely removed if healthy. you like almost everyone who takes ths debate is arguing against soemthing i dont even say. my point is very novel and different, bt it shouldn't be.
healthy viable babies who can live outside the mother should not be aborted, just removed.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by induced 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: i dont understand why you would sympathize with a woman for being pregnant, even more than with a baby who is murdered. i think most people would rather be pregnant than murdered
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.