The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

infants born alive by accident during partial birth should be killed

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,465 times Debate No: 4091
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (12)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i would like a rhetorical debate. i am actually against this. but, i want someone who is for partial birth abortion in all situations (even if it's done in the name of emotions of the mom which just means inconvenience etc, as often occurs... don't debate me if you don't accept this premise. i'll be happy to prove it in another thread though) but say they are against this to debate me.

what's the difference between an inch in and an inch out of the mother? i say, it's a techincal difference, so the doctor should just kill it right then outside of the womb.

or if we want to add some level of respectiviblity, assuming putting the baby back in and then killing it wouldn't count as to respectability..... we can just transport teh baby to a killing room made and sanctified for that sort of purpose.
or, we could wait a few days or weeks if the baby is viable until a govenor gives the okay, and then kill it.

it's all the same difference.
beem0r

Con

Infants should never be killed unless it serves some more important purpose, and for this reason I must disagree with the resolution: "infants born alive by accident during partial birth should be killed"

Partial-birth abortion is not the issue here. The issue here is killing an infant. The justification for partial-birth abortion is that an unborn is not actually a human worthy of rights yet. Let's say that I agree with this [since my opponent wanted an opponent who agreed with partial-birth abortion]

So to make clear my hypothetical viewpoint, I believe that a fetus becomes a person deserving of rights at BIRTH. Thus, an infant who is accidentally BORN during partial birth should not be killed - for that would be murder.

Thus, I base my position on the fact that infanticide and homicide are wrong, and that the baby definitely deserves rights [like the right to not be killed] once it is born.

I therefore challenge my opponent to show me why a baby who is born should not be considered a person with rights.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

by your reasoning, that the child should have rights.... then the child inside the mother should have rights, five seconds before it was born, and we all know this is flawed reasoning.

you have not demonstrated how the five second change makes any difference.

you can't argue that the mother is hindered when inside her, because in a partial birth, the baby is not going to be a hindrance to the mother any more. and we all know partial birth is okay. in partial birth, the baby is still viable, often. if you don't think viable babies are aborted wtih partial birth for no purpose, you wuld be mistaken. as one abortion doctor said... "Gee, it's too bad that this child couldn't be adopted. On the other hand, I have another position, which I think is superior in the hierarchy of questions, and that is: "Who owns the child?" It's got to be the mother."

so, becuse partial birth is clearly okay, there's no real distinction that suddenly makes infanticide immediately or thereabouts after birth not okay.
beem0r

Con

There are many ways to decide when to give a baby rights.

My opponenet claims I have not shown how there is a difference between a baby still inside and a baby outside. The difference is the the baby inside has not yet been born. I think I made this clear. Since being for partial-birth abortion requires that someone either A> have this as their criteria, or B> be okay with slaughtering babies. Since A makes a lot more sense to me, I chose A for this debate.

By my reasoning, a baby still inside the mother does not deserve rights, because it has not been born.

By my reasoning, a baby outside the mother DOES deserve rights, since it has been born.

This is just as valid of criteria as "As long as it's the first trimester, it's okay." There's always going to be a slippery slope. What about a second after the first trimester is over?

Regardless of my position in this debate, I urge everyone to consider what PRO is asking. PRO is asking that BABIES that have actually been BORN should just be killed. My opponenet has not shown why a baby who has been born should NOT have rights, as I asked her to do in R1.

My opponent instead has tried to show that by my hypothetical belief in partial-birth abortion, I should be PRO. However, consider that my hypothetical pro partial-birth abortion stance could very well be wrong.

Not only that, but I did show a difference. The criteria I am using to determine if a baby deserves rights is whether or not the baby has been born. By this criteria, a baby inside the mother does not deserve rights, a baby outside the mother does.

I once again ask my opponent: Why should a baby who is born not have rights? What are YOUR criteria?
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

let me be clearer. i said:

"you can't argue that the mother is hindered when inside her, because in a partial birth, the baby is not going to be a hindrance to the mother any more."

If the baby is in the process of being born, it cannot seriously be considered to be a hindrance to the mother, if all it has to do is be removed a little more. The woman, in that situation, has no reason to be for the baby's death, as it couldn't pose a restraint on her. And, since we know and believe and partial birth is wrong, how can it seriously be argued that two seconds makes a difference? it cannot seriously be considered that.

that a mother might otherwise be justified to have an abortion, and the reasoning sound... thinking that a woman could have a parital birth, but then not be able to terminate outside the mother is flawed, it cannot be taken seriously. you are entitled to your opinion obviously, but no serious person could think it different. if you are for partial birth, when the baby is viable etc, then you must be for a two second, accidenetal, allowance, as you'd be arguing techincalities otherwise.

my reasons for allowing the death of the baby soon after birth are similar enough to during birth. for one, my weaker point, if hte birth cord is still attached, it can still be argued to be part of my body. for two, the mother doesn't want to deal with the emotions of the baby living, and depression, and since it's part of her body that it came from, and someone needs to decide, then it should be her.

lastly, maybe i am wrong regarding my belief in killing after birth. but, if that's the case, that doesn't mean you're right regarding partial bhirth in any circumstance,,,, if i'm wrong, that means you're wrong too. a technicality of a few inches cannot reasonably be considered significant. if she can have the baby partial birth, she can have it all the way, and there's no need to terminate it.

but irregardless of why i think what i do, you've still not shownn how you're right, to any reasonable person, that two inches is signficant, and that she can't just finish her pregancy and not terminate it.
since we know that to be valid termination, when she could just finish it up, how can you distinguish seriously a post birth abortion? you can't, seriously.
beem0r

Con

That "technicality" is what I've chosen as the criteria for my hypotherical positon in support of partial-birth abortion.

In fact, I am arguing that we should NOT kill these infants. My opponent is the one arguing in favor of killing "infants born alive by accident during partial birth." And yet my opponent has repeatedly made arguments against abortion in general. If abortion is wrong, then CLEARLY and UNDENIABLY, infanticide is wrong.

If a baby has not been born [is still inside the mother], and the mother wants to end it's life, then by my hypothetical stance, she should be able to do that, because it has not gained it's rights, since it's still part of her body.

However, THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE WE ARE DEBATING. We are debating whether it is permissible to kill a child that is unquestionably not part of the mother's body. My opponent has given no arguments in favor of this, no criteria by which we should allow it. Instead, she has relied on trying to show that my two viewpoints don't make sense together. I believe I have cleared that up, but if not, WHO CARES. I have argued that babies should not be killed after they are born, my opponent has failed to do the opposite.

Therefore, vote CON, for great justice.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
LOL @ Ragnar Rahl!
(25 characters)
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Ugh.... it was very late at night. And I type fast anyways so I never notice my mistakes. Sorry, did you find it?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
I should check out a debate you are NOT engaged in? That's a bit... difficult. :D
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Actually I am not engaged in a debate on that subject. You should check it out Ragnar Rahl. I would be interested in your input.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Hmm, it seems we're stuck with choice between voting for one holding a nonposition, or a position of "You have passed the Go mark on your mother's privates, collect 200 rights."

Rights do not accrue upon birth, nor upon conception. They occur upon conceptualization- i.e., one acquires rights when one becomes rational enough to respect the rights of those who respect their rights, that is, other rational beings. And ipso facto, when one is rational enough to NOT act as though those who don't respect one's rights have rights of their own. In essence, a right, or proper limit on interaction with a person, accrues to you when someone violating that right (stepping over that limit) becomes a necessary condition for you to step over that limit toward them. Thou shalt not kill me if i am innocent- because your lack of attempt to kill me is necessary from the standpoint of your own self-interest, because if you try it I have a motive to kill you, and so does everyone else similar to me :D. The same with the rights of liberty and property, i.e., people not trying to stop each other from applying their mind to their action, and people not preventing the consequences of one's productive actions from accruing to the producer.
Posted by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
Yrealz, I hope your joking..
If your not, then you might enjoy this:

Joe: 'George, how many babies does it take to paint a house?'
George: 'I dunno, how many Joe?'
Joe: grins* 'Depends on how hard you throw them'
George: frown* 'dad!?'
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Infanticide should be encouraged in all situations. Infants should not have the rights until 3 years of age.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 9 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
maybe you need to reorganize your reading comprehension skills. it could be said more effectively what i said, but it's not by any means bad.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 9 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
i am aware partial birth is not allowed anymore, btw, just for argument
Posted by leethal 9 years ago
leethal
I'd like to take this debate on, but you need to reorganize your arguments into something resembling English first.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
dairygirl4u2cbeem0rTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2cbeem0rTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by indianajones644 8 years ago
indianajones644
dairygirl4u2cbeem0rTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
dairygirl4u2cbeem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by sonofzapp 9 years ago
sonofzapp
dairygirl4u2cbeem0rTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
dairygirl4u2cbeem0rTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by dairygirl4u2c 9 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
dairygirl4u2cbeem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by GenEd 9 years ago
GenEd
dairygirl4u2cbeem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by Under-Aged_Voter101 9 years ago
Under-Aged_Voter101
dairygirl4u2cbeem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
dairygirl4u2cbeem0rTied
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