The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
bp_1138
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

if we allow killing similiar to partial birth abortion... accidental birth killing should be allowed

Do you like this debate?NoYes-11
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 3 votes the winner is...
bp_1138
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,693 times Debate No: 24000
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (3)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

if we would allow partial birth abortion, by extension, we should also allow killing the baby during an accidental birth that occurs during an attempted abortion.

i would like a rhetorical debate. i am actually against this. but, i want someone who is for partial birth abortion etc but say they are against this to debate me.
i am aware that partial birth is banned by federal law now... but it's a hypothetical debate. (we could also consider pregnancies that are beginning to be delievered, are aborted and then are removed, without a technical partial birth.)

why allow one, but not the other?
we might say that the birth point is our arbitrary magic point. but why is this arbitrary point of any true significance?

the mother is not going to be hindered if we delivered the baby alive instead of aborting.... so her claim to body rights or emotional distress etc are just as valid or invalid with a born baby.

we might decide that we have to decide a point... and any point will be arbitrary. and there's a slippery slope that cannot be escaped... any point you pick, a few minutes in difference is not really subtantial. but, why not choose a point that is at least more debateable to allow the abortion, and then ban it later on? if we're going that route, of banning abortion, that is, and trying to find points that are of worth in when to ban.

if we are not trying to find a more plausible point... then why not follow partial birth to its logical conclusion and just kill the baby out of womb?
bp_1138

Con

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for the challenge, and the willingness to debate this subject.

Also, I would like to point out, the inference of the first Paragraph reads as such, "If Partial-Birth Abortion were allowed, then by extension, it should also be allowed to terminate a baby who was successfully delivered during an attempted abortion." This is what I shall base my argument upon.

--------------------------

This extension should not be permitted for the following reason

Partial-Birth Abortion (PBA) is meant to protect the health of the mother, as certain types of harmful abnormalities are not able to be spotted until much later in the pregnancy, Whereas an accidental birth , even though it was intended to be terminated, is still a live baby; one that has been safely delivered.

The reason for the development of PBA was for the health of the mother, not just another form of abortion. While yes, it may be a somewhat gruesome procedure at times, it is designed to be used in certain cases.

"Medical conditions and indications may develop after the first trimester (12 weeks) of pregnancy that could threaten the mother's life and/or health. Late-occurring medical conditions can include:

-- Heart failure
-- Severe or uncontrollable diabetes
-- Serious renal disease
-- Uncontrollable hypertension (high blood pressure)
-- Severe depression
(http://usliberals.about.com...)"

Saying that killing a baby who has been delivered successfully, thus negating the reason for PBA, is the same as successfully aborting a baby that was threatening the life of it's mother, is not only wrong, but in fact, murder. That surviving baby should be allowed to live. Medical care should be provided for it until it is able to go home with a family.

In this argument, you state as though the termination of a baby, in order to preserve the mother, is the same as killing a newborn child, who has been delivered successfully, albeit premature. Saying this would give anyone the excuse to claim killing their newborn child was done due to "accidental birth during an abortion" thus allowing people to legally commit Infanticide.

I will now accept rebuttals from my opponent.

Also, this is my first debate, so I would appreciate all input in order to better myself and my cases.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

if the mother has all those problems that PBA would allow... but she's able to deliver the baby, why would we allow her to abort it? she essentially has all the same arguments with the baby two minutes inside her as she'd have two minutes outside of her. any distinction about the birth canal are merely technicalities... how are they not?
i mean, you could argue the technicality, but you are not giving substantial differentiation... just a technicality.
how is this more than baseless technicality at work?

you say that it is infanticide, but only by technical definitions only. why would we get caught up about a baby being killed two minutes later outside of the womb, when two minutes before it was legal?

if we allow the killing two minutes inside when it could jsut as easily be delivered... why not two minutes outside? if we won't accept one.... we are forced not to accept the other. if we accept one, we are forced to accept the other.
bp_1138

Con

Before I continue, I would like to point out that due to my opponent's flawed usage of sentence structure and grammar, I am forced to try and deduce this with little reference material or guidelines. Anything I infer is based solely on what I might be able to scrounge together.

---------------------------------------------------

First and foremost, I will respond to your question, "if the mother has all those problems that PBA would allow... but she's able to deliver the baby, why would we allow her to abort it?"

Here, I am guessing that you were trying to ask, "If the mother was in danger from one of the given conditions, but she delivers the baby, why would we allow her to abort it"

Well... We wouldn't. That would be contrary to what I had argued in the opening round. The situation you mention falls under the second category of accidental birth during a PBA; which I stated is not the same as a standard procedure PBA.

As long as the baby is in the mother, and it has the potential to injure or kill her if brought to full term, it is a candidate for PBA. If, however, during that procedure, the baby were to be delivered prematurely instead of being terminated while still partially inside of it's mother, then it is an exception, and should be viewed as a procedure similar to a caesarian Section (a perfectly legal procedure, used to birth babies that are at nearly full term, and occasionally to abort them).

Next, I will respond to your quote, "she essentially has all the same arguments with the baby two minutes inside her as she'd have two minutes outside of her. any distinction about the birth canal are merely technicalities... how are they not?"

What my opponent fails to realise, is that as long as that baby is inside the mother, it can be life-threatening. Certain medical cases, such as 'Water on the Brain'[1] that cause the fetus's head to swell up to 2x-3x it's normal size and can lead to health complications in the mother.


Also, there are many other "terminable" conditions that don't develop until later, but can be devastating to the Mother or Child, such as EB [2]. Johnny Kennedy, famous for both Having EB and fighting for funding and research for EB, is quoted to have said, "If I ever had a child, and I knew it would have EB, I would not think twice, I would have it terminated."

Diseases like EB with no cure are one reason to abort a child using PBA, or any other form of abortion. These oddities would be the exception to the rule. In ANY other case, where a baby with no devastating health issues was 'accidentally delivered during PBA', then there is no cause for termination, as the mother is now safe, and the child is neither threatening it's mother's life, nor the victim of a terrible disease or condition.

At the end of my opponent's argument, she mentions this, "if we allow the killing two minutes inside when it could jsut as easily be delivered... why not two minutes outside? if we won't accept one.... we are forced not to accept the other. if we accept one, we are forced to accept the other."

Though I am unsure as to what that statement actually says, I believe I have answered this question in the rest of my argument, here in the 2nd round.


Since my opponent showed no real argument in either of her last two statements, I will go ahead and accept this as a most definite win for the Con side.

Also, I've been awake for the better part of 40 hours, so I apologise if I wander, or get a bit sidetracked. Thanks for understanding :)




1 http://www.chop.edu...

2 http://www.channel4.com...
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

"What my opponent fails to realise, is that as long as that baby is inside the mother, it can be life-threatening. Certain medical cases, such as 'Water on the Brain'[1] that cause the fetus's head to swell up to 2x-3x it's normal size and can lead to health complications in the mother. "

if the baby is inside the mother, but able to be delivered... we could require it to be delivered instead of aborted. the mother then doesn't have that life threatening issue.

if we allow the killing two minutes inside when it could jsut as easily be delivered... why not two minutes outside? if we won't accept one.... we are forced not to accept the other. if we accept one, we are forced to accept the other.

the only thing that con can argue is a technicality.. the birth canal as a demarcation of when abortion should be allowed. but he has yet to provide a reasoned explanation of how or why that point matters beyond what is essentially a technical point. a technicality
bp_1138

Con

bp_1138 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bp_1138 4 years ago
bp_1138
Apologies for not posting a 3rd round rebuttal/close. I was unaware that the time frame was not 72 hours, and have been out of town... Thank you for your votes
Posted by bp_1138 4 years ago
bp_1138
There's an awesome spell check tool at the bottom of the reply box. It's the green check mark thing, that says 'Check Your Spelling'... Try it...
Posted by photopro21 4 years ago
photopro21
I'll take it if you clarify definitions a bit
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
i dont get it. Is this a joke?
Posted by FREEDO 4 years ago
FREEDO
Oh, would you like that! It's the infamous dairygirl! Who could possibly be brave enough to accept this debate?
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
I think the first sentence is referring to when an abortion goes wrong and the baby is accidentally born alive.
Posted by Meatros 4 years ago
Meatros
Can you edit your first sentence? I'm trying to make ome sense of it.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 4 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
i edited some miswordings
Posted by Meatros 4 years ago
Meatros
I can't make sense of your first paragraph.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
@wiploc
LOL

Seriously, that line appears to make no sense. When does a pregnancy occur doing an abortion?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
dairygirl4u2cbp_1138Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, sources.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
dairygirl4u2cbp_1138Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, sources con he had them. Both args sucked
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
dairygirl4u2cbp_1138Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff