The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

if healthy baby can be removed, and mother is fine too, abortion should not be allowed

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 926 times Debate No: 31866
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




in cases where mother wants abortion (or to be free from the baby), 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 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.


The orthodox catholic view that abortion is murder has been dismissed too casually by most. To arbitrarily set a line at conception, and to say that at that point the child is not human, and not worthy of the protection of law before the line is irrational. For what is the difference between the child one minute before birth and one minute after birth? The key feature of a child, which demands it the protection of law, is not that it is presently a rational, thinking self aware being but rather that it will become one when it reaches adulthood, and certainly this is no less true of the child in utero. The in utero child, the unborn baby, is human and as such has all the rights which we must grant to all humans.

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).
Debate Round No. 1


if we take as a premise that you are for those babies having rights, then why not give them the same rights as every one else?
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 difference between the unborn child and the robber - both invaders - is that the child cannot exist outside of the womb. When you demand that a mother carry her child to term, you are saying that her body is your property and you will instruct her on what she will do with it. I am giving these babies the same rights as everyone else - what I'm not giving them is right's that they should not have, the right to invade another's property (the mother's body). While it's true you cannot kill someone just for trespassing, as the punishment must be proportion to the crime, the unborn child's life requires that trespass and the mother has an absolute legal right to evict the unborn baby from her body.
Debate Round No. 2


even if we accpet your premise that the mother has an absolute right to evict them... that only means what i said to ebgin with... she has the right to evict them, and if the baby is healthy, then it should be removed. not killed. there are countless examples of babies who are healthy being aborted. born alive babies, partial birth abortion that could be removed more, aborting for trivial reasons late ni pregnancy etc when healthy and viable.

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.


The question isn't what does the law allow but what can my conscience condone. It's not possible for someone to be surgically implanted into a building. It's not a question of the baby's health - the mother has an absolute right to choose what is living inside her and not.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by BrooklynHaze 4 years ago
A lot of pro-lifers seem to complete ignore the facts that humans that grow up unwanted or unloved the great majority has a shitty life and has a higher % chance of ending up on deathrow or prison for life. Whenever abortion is backed by the reason that the child is unwanted, it's just for humans. Rather that, than have a possible murderer growing up without empathy taught from the love and care of parents.
Posted by ZakYoungTheLibertarian 4 years ago
abortions for some, and minature american flags for the rest!
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 4 years ago
con ignored the point that you can jsut remove the baby... the whole point of the debate. same as just removing trespassers to property.
(they coiuld be attached to property too... it is possible theyd have to be surgically removed. but this was jsut an analogy to make a point. con also got hung up on an anaology i stead of addressing the point
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by induced 4 years ago
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:30 
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