life of infant in womb, should sometimes take priority over mother's wishes for abortion
Debate Rounds (3)
at least later in the pregnancy... sometiems infant's rights should trump. a mother assumed the risk of pregnancy, and then, she assumed the risk of carrying the child for many months.
to be clear, i'm focusing on later in pregnancy. but there and earlier, an argument could be made that earlier in the pregnancy she forfeits her right to not be pregnant by assuming that risk. much like... if you cause an accident, and the victim's body is somehow temporarily attachedk to your body, hypothetically speaking... a reasonable person would say the tortfeasor must at least wait a few months until they can be separated.
that analogy could be extended to later in pregnancy, and then topped off with the fact that she didn't bother to terminate when it was more debatable whether it's a person or not. (if it's debatable, who should decide? the governmnet? why not the mother who is more proximite?) when it was morally grayer.
later in the pregnancy though, it's not debatable about personhood. if there's no significant health or life or very very significant emotional problems (which might include rape, but since i'm focusing on later term pregnancy, the mother is losing her rights in that regard given she didnt abort when morally grayer), aborting the infant in the womb is no different than aborting it when it is born. the only difference, that the mother is hindered, is trumped by the risks she assumed, and that leaves nothing to justify abortion later in the pregnancy if an exception doesn't apply.
Sometimes birth control, condoms, and other things don't work 100% of the time. Why should someone be punished for having sex? It's natural. Also, not all the time the mother assumes the risks. What if she was raped? Sometimes, not all the time she assumes risk for carrying the child. What if her birth control didn't work, and she didn't know she was pregnant?
Why shouldn't a mother be able to chose if she decides to keep the baby or have an abortion? She might not want to decide right after she got pregnant. She might want to take some time to decide if she wants tow if she really wanted an abortion or if she wants a child.
What if the mother didn't know she was pregnant? What if she only found out in late pregnancy? That shouldn't mean she shouldn't have different rights than a mother who found out quicker. Again, her birth control might have not worked and she didn't figure out until late pregnancy.
i also could allow rape exceptions as mentioned, so it was pointless for you to mention it.
how does the value of allowing a mother time to decide if she wants to keep it trump a human life? if an exception like rape or health doesn't apply as mentioned.
not knowing you are pregnancy almost never is an issue in late pregnancy. i would just chalk it up to luck of the draw for the woman though if she didnt know till later. she still assumed the risk of pregnancy and there's soemthing to be said about her lack of periods and keeping in tune with what's going on. (recgonizing not all woman have periods due to birth control etc)
so are you suggesting a woman with no traditinoal exception like health, should be able to abort her child a week before her due date, just because she wants to? if you say no, then you agree with teh resolution, the woman sometimes DOESNT get what she wants. you were just trying to poke holes in something. at best we'd just make better laws to accommodate those holes, it doesn't mean a woman's choice is absolute, which you seem to be saying by taking this debate etc.
Kiebear forfeited this round.
Kiebear forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.