The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bennourse
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-1
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...
bennourse
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,669 times Debate No: 24143
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

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?

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

life threatening issue etc. 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
bennourse

Con

I thank Pro for this debate and I saw one similar on here and wasn't sure about it, and I'm still unsure on what your position is but will be arguing that if we allow partial birth abortion, we shouldn't allow accidental birth killing.

Pro's main point seems to be in the opening statement - "Why is the birth-point more valid than any other point", i.e., why do we allow the abortion of the unborn baby and not the killing of the born baby; Pro sees no difference between the two and sees no significance in it

Firstly, Pro says that "we might say that the birth point is our arbitary magic point. but why is the arbitary point of any true significance?". Here pro firstly refers to the point being "arbitrary" which is a cold and calculating view of the reason for it being there in the first place; when a baby is fully born, it is undoubtedly a human being in its first moments of life outside of the womb. Pro doesn't see the difference between "aborting" and "killing" a baby and doesn't recognise this. It isn't an "arbitrary" point at all, but a highly heated and controversial topic (abortion in general) and isn't something to be seen as a dimensionless issue but an extremely emotionally attached and important one.

I'd also like to point out that Pro's statement on "why is the ... point of any ... significance" shows a downfall in Pro's belief. Pro seems to be saying that there isn't any true significant point to it and that killing a newborn is the same as an emergency abortion for example, or a partially born baby. Partial birth abortion is never a choice but is used for the mother's safety. You cannot legally in the USA have an abortion after around 24-28 weeks and so it would only ever be used for the safety of the mother. Pro doesn't make this distinction and creates a flawed argument.

You then go on to say that the mother is not hindered if the baby is delivered alive instead of aborting. Now this is an interesting point because again, it seems to point to a lack of an understanding of emotional bonding between a mother and her newborn. They have been bonding for nine months, when the newborn is born, the majority of parents bond with their children immediately upon seeing them "Studies have found that about 20% of new mums and dads feel no real emotional attachment to their newborn in the hours after delivery" [s1]. So not only is this false, but it lacks the emotional and factual understanding to get to the root and to understand this issue in its entirety.

Pro then goes on to argue that "a few minutes difference isn't substantial" and that "any point [we pick/agree on] would be arbitrary". This isn't logical. We HAVE to pick a point, otherwise, if we had it your way, there wouldn't be any right for abortion OR there would be, even after the baby was born, which wouldn't be a controlled abortion on undeveloped foetus, but a killing of a newborn! What will the cut off point be if it is after birth and it happens to be an accidental one? Would it mean you could decide to kill the child up to when they're five years old for example? Can't you see we have a NEED for some distinction around the world on the laws of abortion? Pro is arguing that all points are arbitrary; I argue that a point is needed for it to be legitimately handled/avoid confusion. You then go on to say "why not follow partial birth to its logical conclusion and just kill the baby out of womb?". Again, you say it's logical, but it really is the opposite and you need to rethink what you're arguing. You seem to think that if, arguably, partial birth abortion was still legally a woman's choice, then it's okay to kill the child AFTER birth. There is nothing logical about this.

You then go on to say that "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". This is too narrow minded and too sweeping a statement, especially because of the complexities of the cases (which you can read the controversies in my sources over particulars) which occurs with this rare procedure. If we say one is wrong and one is right we are in no way saying that we have to accept all or none of the positions; this is fallible and I don't think I need to say more as to why.

You finally say that "it's just technicalities that con can prove" which I've demonstrably proven to be a non-point in this debate as this debate totally rests on technicalities due to its sensitivity and rarity in its cases. Pro obviously shows a lack of understanding if they believe it to be so black and white and interchangeable with regular abortion, which they obviously do.

As for my argument, I believe that if for argument's sake partial birth abortion were to happen legally as the choice of the mother, it doesn't follow that you should therefore kill a child afterwards. Firstly; an accidental birth is fairly rare in Westernised societies and I'm finding it hard to find any evidence for a substantial amount of cases for either of the two topics in the debate's title. But supposing it was quite a big problem, what then? Would it still be acceptable? In short, no, absolutely not.

Firstly, not many women are unaware if they're pregnant, and heavily pregnant especially. In western societies there are lots of options and time for the woman to decide what to do, this includes if they're choosing the abortion or are having it for health reasons.

On to the main point though; partial birth abortion accounts for "0.17%" [s2] of abortions in the US, just to get the argument in perspective, and also, the various medical associations in the USA do not "recognize [the term] as a medical term by the American Medical Association[7] nor the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.[8]" [s2] and is used to emphasise or inflame those who are debating in political discourse. Technically, it is only a partial birth and you can read about the description in [s2], for it is too long to quote, but it seems to allude to it being under very rare and emergency circumstances; it isn't used for leisure and nor is it used readily enough to pose a threat to the safety of the majority of births. And remember, that figure was just out of abortions! It would have been a hell of a lot smaller in comparison to all the births in the country.

From this then, in the understanding that it is definitely not equatable to normal abortion (which is allowed to happen in the UK and the USA up to 24-28 weeks or in other words "Fetal viability" [s3] through choice and in the USA, if the mother's life is at risk, it can happen whenever because she comes first) it doesn't follow that if "partial birth abortion" were to occur, which it already does, then accidental birth (which I'm not sure is even happening much, if at all in westernised countries and I need you to define what accidental birth is) killing shouldn't be accepted because they're totally different. You can have an abortion in the USA up to 24-28 weeks legally, and an abortion whenever is necessary to save the woman's life. In simple terms; partial birth abortion is in no way equatable to killing a newborn baby.

[s1]http://www.webmd.boots.com...
[s2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[s3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i was talking about accidental births, but you mistakenly seem to be talking about births in general, in much of your post.
but really, i could extend the accidental birth idea to most abortions... instead of aborting, why not, if it's easier or more helpful in the killing,,,, in any case where an abortion would otherwise be justtified, just remove the baby and kill it there? we could say "you have twenty four hours to terminate the baby", or something. i'm sure this would provide many benefits for a more clean cut kill, especially if we're concerned about the health of the mother etc.
it seems society, in being against something like this, is essentially falling back to really just wanting to "keep it out of sight out of mind" etc.

if we thought on principle that the birth canal does matter (even though there's nothing truly significant of this point), an accidental birth might see as more "fair game" of a kill outside of the womb. perhaps freely allowing outside womb killings when an abortion is otherwise justified is seen as too "not fair game" to the baby.... but, it's not like anyone intended it to happen, the birth. the accident puts fair gameness in mothers side, cause it's a mere technicalty.

you say the birth canal should be the official demarcation but haven't truly given any real significance to the points other than references to how it'd be chaotic etc if we didn't. but it doesn't have to be chaotic, we can give clear guidelines.

if it's easier to kill in the mom then do it there... if it's easier to kill out of the mom do it there. same difference, really.

you did try to attribute some significance to the birth canal, but haven't really proven why it's truly significant....

"when a baby is fully born, it is undoubtedly a human being in its first moments of life outside of the womb"

it's just as much a human being inside two minutes earlier too. it might be the first moments of life outside the womb, but you haven't said why that matters. you say that point is an emotionally attached point... but emotion doesn't really mean much, cold calculated truth does.. and two minutes outside v inside doesn't make a difference.

"Pro then goes on to argue that "a few minutes difference isn't substantial" and that "any point [we pick/agree on] would be arbitrary". This isn't logical. We HAVE to pick a point, otherwise, if we had it your way, there wouldn't be any right for abortion OR there would be, even after the baby was born, which wouldn't be a controlled abortion on undeveloped foetus, but a killing of a newborn! "

sure, we can pick a point twenty four hours after the birth or something. remember, my hypotheticdal is about abortion procedures that became accidental. and, as i said though we could extend it to any situation where an abortion would be otherwise justified.... why demarcate the birth canal when all it is is a technicality? if anything, if the kill is more clean cut, it makes more sense to demarcate outside teh womb if its more helpful.
then again... yes tehre's also the possiblity that we don't allow the abortion later in the pregnancy. as i said, when an abortion is otherwise justified.... either we allow it inside the mom and outside the mom (agains when otherwise abortion is justified, and it'd eb helpful to the killing procedure)... or we don't for either
bennourse

Con

Pro hasn't offered me an explanation on what they mean by "Accidental birth" and I'm still confused as to what Pro means on this; a lack of clarification on Pro's part should be noted by the voters.

Pro's argument is contradicting itself. You first say "why not, if it's easier or more helpful in the killing,,,, in any case where an abortion would otherwise be justtified, just remove the baby and kill it there?" and then later Pro goes on to say that "if it's easier to kill in the mom then do it there... if it's easier to kill out of the mom do it there. same difference, really". Pro's position, in short, is muddled. Pro first says that if an abortion is possible, why not just kill it outside of the womb and then goes on to say if it's easier to kill inside then do it there and if outside then do it outside. Pro's point is muddied and I haven't got much of an idea what they mean.

And I have proved why it's significant. 24-28 weeks is there because it's when the foetus matures into an independent baby as I have stated in my sources before hand. After that point, it's no longer legal in the USA to have an abortion unless the mother's life is at risk. Now you're saying that there's "no real significance" in it's rights as a human being 2 minutes before it's born to when it is first born into the world. I agree with you, however I was making the point that it is most DEFINITELY a human being when it is born and is endowed with human rights; in other words, killing a baby 24 hours after it's born is not the mother's right because she has no business in killing a 1 day old baby just because she may not like it. When that baby is born, it comes under protection from the state and so allowing it to be killed 24 hours after birth is not only illogical (due to what I've said before) but brutal.

There are other options if this accidental birth happened. They could give them up for adoption for example, or they could give them to their parents to raise or whatever other scenarios we could conceive of.

Also, if the baby is born, then the Doctors would have allowed it because it was safe for the mother. They would've in the earlier stages picked up anything like if it was putting the mother in danger and would deal with it accordingly. This accidental birth would never happen as you say it would. And I again point out that you haven't given me any reasons to believe that killing a new born is in any way just or logical. You say that "emotion doesn't really mean much" yet you'd have a mother decide if she wanted to kill her newborn for a reason I'm really not having the faintest idea of! As I stated in my last argument, 80% of parents bond with their children in the first moments of holding them in their arms. I cannot think of a society which would voluntarily kill newborns for reasons you haven't stated clearly enough for me to understand, not in the Westernised world any way.

You then finally say that "if the kill is more clean cut, it makes more sense to demacrate outside teh womb if its more helpful". This is something I cannot quite comprehend; by your logic, people would be better off to be killed cleanly than to have the option to live. How isn't abortion "clean" to you? It's painless for the woman (except emotional, of course) and for the foetus. They normally inject the foetus or have other ways in which to deal with abortions and then there's counselling services and all other types of aid for the woman and the father to help through grieving. Medicine is there to help people, not to make the most efficient sense. Emotion is vital in this, because medicine should help everyone no matter who they are, and your cold view on it all doesn't make sense, especially with this subject matter.

Also, we keep referring to the mother, but what about the father? Surely he should get a say on whether his son or daughter is slaughtered when they're a human being outside of the womb in the world? Pro doesn't understand that there is options other than killing off a baby if it is unwanted (which I think is what you're getting at, because I've established this is the only conceivable possibility for your killings to be even considered by the parents). There are thousands and thousands of couples in the USA waiting for a baby to adopt, so why kill the baby if it has already been born and it isn't wanted by the mother or father? Why if it has been born, waste the life that has been created? Why not give it to a loving family and let it grow up healthily with love and a future? This goes beyond abortion; when that baby comes into this world, the woman's rights does not mean she can now have the baby killed. The doctors would have dealt with it if the birth was going to kill her by having it aborted or having it born earlier. Pro doesn't understand that that baby, when it's born, has the same rights as you and I and no one has the rights to kill an innocent newborn on the grounds of it "being similar to an abortion" when it is anything but. This is wrong, and a silly and inhumane position to take. If this happened in my society I'd be ashamed to be a part of it.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

accidental births are not unheard of. sometimes they occur during an attemp[ted abotion like partial birth soemtimes they don't.

i wasn't contradicting myself, if it's healthier to the mom and easier to kill in the mom, kill there. if outside meets those conditions, kill there. ... of coruse in both cases an abortion would need ot be otherwise justified. ie, you can't kill outside the womb if you couldn't kill inside.

to demarcate the birth canal as the magic point without considering other factors like ease of kill and mother's well being is height of arbitrariness, and really self contradictaryness. if it's permissible to kill two minutes in or two, it's the same difference.... other factors should come into play.
the fact that doctors think they need to even do partial birth abortions shows that people have no real basis for these demarcations. this is literally going to the most extreme of this arbitrary point... mere inches to fulfill a technicality. if it's in any way easier, why not just kill outside of the womb?

the language con uses to me illustrates he's more concerned about techncialities and fluff think than reality. he insists "it's a new born at that pooint!". that he uses words like newborn and disregards the fact that an inch or two later he's fair game to be killed... shows that he's more inclined to fluff think. "newborn" type language. fetus v baby type language. if it at least tried to expound on "rights" of the newborn outside of the womb, he'd be indicating it's not so much fluff sentimentality.
course, if we went that route... we'd have to consider whetheri t's truly right and fair and just to kill the baby sometime healthy babies mind you two seconds in but can't two seconds out. (when an abotion would be justified)

"And I have proved why it's significant. 24-28 weeks is there because it's when the foetus matures into an independent baby as I have stated in my sources before hand. After that point, it's no longer legal in the USA to have an abortion unless the mother's life is at risk."

it's not unheard of that healthy babies are aborted, even if it's for the health of the mother (and to be sure, yes soemtime emotional health is abused as an excuse to abort healthy babies)
at the very least, to be consistent... con should be talking about requiring mohters to give birth to relatively healthy infants, if it's possible to save both lives, wehn the mother's life is in danger.... instead of aborting.
that way he wouldn't be essentially demarcating arbitrary points.
he acts as if we can't not be arbitary and should choose the birth canal (there's no reason we coudn't choose twenty four hours later if we did that)... but as i asid in my initial post... we can demarcate a point of all healthy baby killing is wrong either inside or outside teh mom as there's disputed viablity or whatever (if it's the only way to save the mom, to abort... that's understandable, and one thing)... but more lenient abortions insdie or outside during less disputed times. this makes killing decisions less because of technical points in space of a few seconds.. and about the actual health v non of both mother and child.
bennourse

Con

Pro, I'm finding it almost impossible to understand your points because of your like of grammar or lack of clarity.

AGAIN Pro hasn't given me a definition of accidental birth and I assume Pro means if they're aborted but for some reason are born alive because the abortion wasn't effective. Pro says "if it's healthier to the mom and easier to kill in the mom, kill there. if outside meets those conditions, kill there". Pro, I cannot reiterate it any plainer; why would you ever need to kill a baby after its been born? Why would the mother's health be then linked to that baby when it is born? The baby is no longer in the mother and therefore, by simple logic, no health risks could come to the mother due to the separate entity that is now the baby. I do not understand your point at all; you cannot establish a difference between abortion past 24-28 weeks for the safety of the mother and killing a baby AFTER it is born.

you then say "of coruse in both cases an abortion would need ot be otherwise justified. ie, you can't kill outside of the womb if you couldn't kill inside". This again makes no logical sense; the only reason you'd need to kill a baby in very late pregnancy would be for the safety of the mother, not for ANY other reason. Why would you, again, EVER need to kill a baby after it's born? If we've established that the only reason to abort this late would be because of the health of the mother, then why would you go through the most dangerous part which was the part that endangered the mother's life and then kill the baby afterwards when it has no effect on her health?

You then talk about how I'm seeing the birth canal as the "magic point without considering other factors like ease of kill and mother's well being"; you're not making any sense and this again links to what I've said above. You then say "other factors should come into play" like the "ease of the kill", but Pro, why do we NEED to kill the baby if the danger was over? If the mother's life was in danger, then the mother comes first, so why didn't they abort the baby before it was born and then kill the baby? What sense does this make? None whatsoever. It's nothing to do with technicalities, it's to do with logic in which you are obviously lacking in this exchange.

You accuse me of using "fluff" language and being more concerned with technicalities than reality. Pro is blind if they seriously think I'm stating my points in a contradictory manner. However, the language I use has no impact on the debate and the fact that Pro has resorted to attacking the way I converse shows how weak their position is.

"it's not unheard of that healthy babies are aborted, even if it's for the health of the mother". Pro, this is EXACTLY what I've been saying; if the mother is at risk, then the baby can be aborted, so I'm glad we agree on that, yet you think we don't.

You then say that "con should be talking about requiring mohters to give birth to relatively healthy infants, if it's possible to save both lives, wehn the mother's life is in danger .... instead of aborting". I do not understand what you're saying here, and the general lack of clarity is making it impossible for me to know your position. Are you saying that we should have healthy infants born all the time no matter what the risk is to the mother's health? Are you saying that we shouldn't always do it if the mother's life is endanger? Or are you saying it should be born and then killed? I do not understand what you're getting at here at all.

Pro finally goes on to say how killing a baby in the womb is the same as killing 24 hours after it's born. Pro says if we should allow abortion we should allow the other. This is not only riddled with fallacy but also a disturbing view.

All in all, no, if partial birth abortion were allowed, accidental birth killing shouldn't be allowed. Pro hasn't given me any points or serious refutation, and where Pro tried, it was too muddled, incoherent and lacking grammar to make sense of any semblances of good points. Pro didn't address my points about the father's say if it were by some horrendous coincidence allowed by law, and Pro hasn't successfully argued their main point of it being "an arbitrary point": it's quite the opposite. Pro said there was no place for technicalities or in depth considerations of the proposal despite the whole experience of Partial birth abortion and accidental birth to be very rare cases which need independent consideration and need clear guidelines and rules. Pro has shown a lack of any logic in their statements and hasn't presented any source information to back up their claims.

Finally then, it is clear we need clear rules and legislation not only for this proposal but for matters to do with abortion generally. Medicine is selfless in that it helps people to better themselves and that is the most basic theme throughout all medical fields. Pro seems to see no problem in killing a new born for no apparent reason, because, as I've shown, there would be no danger to the mother's life once the baby was born and out of the womb. In other words, Pro is either arguing a point they don't really understand, or they're arguing that we should kill new born babies for no good reason at all. It shouldn't be the mother or father's choice after the healthy baby is born whether it should be killed or not because there's no sense in it and I'm surprised Pro hasn't seen that herself.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by bennourse 4 years ago
bennourse
Get voting peeps! :)
Posted by bp_1138 4 years ago
bp_1138
@dairygirl4u2c
Its not a valid argument.... Your title is nonsensical and your argument is as well... It's incredibly hard to understand anything you try to say, due to lack of sentence structure and proper grammar. I don't mean to come out and attack you, but in all seriousness, no-one with any experience on this site takes anything you say seriously... If you are trolling, you're really good (or Bad) at it. If not, well then, I'm sorry....
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 4 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
it'd be interesting if someone tried arguing about the birth canal is the "fairness" marker. inside is fair to the mom to decide, outside we have to consdier the baby's rights etc per what's fair.
i could poke a lot of holes in this... and it'd actually be telling about a lot of stuff... but it'd be interesting for sure to make that sort of argument.
Posted by bennourse 4 years ago
bennourse
By the way, I apologise if the debate seems muddled; I'm simply arguing against the debate title and Pro's arguments are slightly confused and muddled. I do apologise for some lack of clarity.
Posted by bp_1138 4 years ago
bp_1138
She's trying to confuse people into debating this... It's not a debate and the 2 matters are not really as intertwined as she thinks they are...
Posted by yoda878 4 years ago
yoda878
What are you talking about? If it was an accidental how would we allow it.... as if it was meant to be done, then that would make it partial birth abortion... I feel like my mind is going in circles???? :/
Posted by bp_1138 4 years ago
bp_1138
This again?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
dairygirl4u2cbennourseTied
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 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: Con's arguement was better!
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
dairygirl4u2cbennourseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Purely due to the complete illegibility of some rounds, I am giving these points to CON.