The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Shadow-Dragon
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

life of infant in womb, sometimes should take priority over mother's wishes for abortion

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...
Shadow-Dragon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 647 times Debate No: 56192
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

the rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother

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.
Shadow-Dragon

Con

Clarification: I am supporting the side I do not believe, so this should be interesting.

Arguments:

{P1} Complications at Childbirth
As we all should know, there are many cases in which complications during childbirth, or a mother"s trouble having the child, could result in death. Death from childbirth is more common than one would expect. The article[1] linked shows some facts that are worth reading. The important fact for this point, however, was stated as such:
" In 2013, 289 000 women died from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth. In addition, for every woman who dies in childbirth, around 20 more suffer injury, infection or disease " approximately 10 million women each year."

As we can see, complications during childbirth are quite a problem. The lives of many could be mothers could be saved, if they simply aborted the child before. Now this may seem immoral, but we are risking the life of a woman who is living and has many loved one"s for the life of someone whose fate we do not know.

{P2} Child"s Life
In many cases, the woman who seeks an abortion is economically challenged. Thus, she would not be able to support the life of a child. Now, would a mother rather kill a child in the womb, or watch it suffer in the real world. Poor mothers would have to see their child hungry and living a life in poor conditions, simply because the mother wanted to keep the child.

{P3} Other situations
As many agree on, rape is a case where abortion should be allowed, especially since the child could grow up knowing that she was never intended and was the result of a crime. In those cases, would it not be better to let the child go, or rather, have the child suffer living a life of confusion, regret, and feelings of unwantedness.

{P4} Regarding Adoption
I understand that aborting a child is difficult for the mother. However, how much harder is it for the mother once the child was already been born? How could a mother, who feels that connection with their child, be able to give it up? There are many cases of mothers wondering how their child is like currently, after leaving it for adoption many years prior. Also, adoption also has its own problems with bad families and even poor facilities at the adoption home, another place where the child would suffer.

In conclusion, in most cases, the mother knows whether she would be able to handle the child or not. Thus, she should be given the right over their life. It may be difficult for the mother, but she is only acting in the best interest of the child.

[1] http://www.who.int...
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i already allowed for exceptions for the mother's health and rape. con arguing for it adds nothing to the debate.

poor woman. i assume he's arguing about later in the pregnancy since that was my focus. is it okay to kill a baby cause you're poor two seconds out of the womb, but not two seconds before that in the womb? if we accept that it's okay to kill them right in the womb, due to poverty. why not extend it right outside? i'm poor so i choose to kill my new born so it doesn't live in poverty. what is the difference?
same goes for adoption problems. if it's okay to kill right in the womb, can't we just say 'we dont want this baby to have adoption issues so we will terminate the newborn?"

the only distinctions i see that you could draw are the hindrance of the mother. but, you didn't address the two 'assumption of the risk' points i pointed out. and you didnt address the analogy of someone getting attached to you cause of an accident you caused.
Shadow-Dragon

Con

Contentions, Counter Arguments, Rebuttals

"i already allowed for exceptions for the mother's health and rape. con arguing for it adds nothing to the debate."

Well, I understand that you already mentioned that, but I still felt like giving my side on it.

"poor woman. i assume he's arguing about later in the pregnancy since that was my focus."

What I meant was financially poor woman, as in, not enough money or resources to support the child.

" is it okay to kill a baby cause you're poor two seconds out of the womb, but not two seconds before that in the womb? "

I did not mention that nor did I imply it by my arguments. Also, the baby, once out of the womb, then becomes an official child. When a mother of three children is pregnant with the fourth, she does not say, "I have 4 children." She says, "I have three and one on the way," or , "I have three and pregnant with my fourth."
In addition, killing a child outside of the womb is murder, inside the womb is abortion. A child, once out of the womb, becomes a true human being. Before that, in the womb, it does not show enough qualities of a full human being to regard it as such, which is a reason why abortion is allowed.

You continue with logical-fallacies that stretch the points I was making. :

"i'm poor so i choose to kill my new born so it doesn't live in poverty. what is the difference?
same goes for adoption problems. if it's okay to kill right in the womb, can't we just say 'we dont want this baby to have adoption issues so we will terminate the newborn?'"

This can be explained by the points I made above. A child, once it enters the world, is then truly a child that is counted. How do we determine that? The census asks how many children you have, and does not include any child in the womb. The counter that counts the population of the regions changes per birth, not per conception or announced pregnancy.

"the only distinctions i see that you could draw are the hindrance of the mother."

As long as the mother has legal right over the child once it is born, it should have the choice of whether it can handle or wants that right. If a mother or parents cannot handle a child, why force them to have it simply to satisfy the people who don't believe in abortion. I'm sure the same anti-abortion people would be happy to send their children into the army, a place where their child could die.

With regards to your 'assumption' point, a woman takes the risk of getting pregnant by having sex. So, are you implying that woman should not be having sex since they run the risk of getting pregnant. Of course there is a risk, but even people who could not support a child still want to have sex, and if she gets pregnant, we cannot get mad at her for wanting to have sex. If she knows that she can't support, then have an abortion then.
Also, in case you didn't know, there are many mothers who feel too much shame to want to give their child up for adoption, so that is not always a viable options, for other reasons I stated previously.

With regards to your analogy, I did not understand what it meant. What I understood from it was that an accident like a car-crash happened and the person became attached to you?! Then, a logical person would say, "Wait two months before you separate yourselves." I don't understand what point you were trying to make by that analogy.

I will write my counter-rebuttals and finish my arguments in the final round. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

you merely state that two seconds outside of the womb is insufficient to kill the child cause it no longer is attached to the mother. so what makes it okay to kill it two seconds before in the womb? you haven't given a meaningful distinction.

"As long as the mother has legal right over the child once it is born, it should have the choice of whether it can handle or wants that right. If a mother or parents cannot handle a child, why force them to have it simply to satisfy the people who don't believe in abortion. I'm sure the same anti-abortion people would be happy to send their children into the army, a place where their child could die."

you are not making any limitations, so can we assume by your arguments, that you would be okay with a woman having an abortion just because she wants to, and not for any health or that type of reason.... a week before her due date?

if that is not what you support, then where do you draw the line, and why? and if not why are you arguing with me when i'm merely arguing that "sometimes" the fetus should be prioritized?

im no say implying she shouldn't have sex. just that there are consequences if she does. i didnt even limit the abortions in earlier pregnancy, i just pointed out that her assumeption of the risk earlier on has to be considered later in pregnancy too.

my point in the analogy is that the mother caused the baby to become attached to her. she was responsible for it. it was an accident, but she was still responsible. no one would say the victim in the analogy should be at the mercy of the person who caused the accident. likewise, no one should say the baby should be at the mercy of the mother, at least later in pregnancy.

i don't understand why you took this debate if you don't think the mother should be able to abort a week before her due date, for fleeting reasons. cause you acknowledged in teh comments that it's hard to argue with the idea of "sometimes" the mother shouldn't have the right to do what she wants.
Shadow-Dragon

Con

With regards to your first paragraph,
Distinction: The way you state it is too much of an exaggeration. Two seconds before birth in the womb is ridiculous, and the proposition that I said that that is okay is incorrect. The limit I believe is that the mother, if she does opt to have an abortion- a practice I do not support- should have the abortion early in the first trimester. After that, moral issues are brought into play. That is my distinction, since you wanted one.

Opponent: "you are not making any limitations, so can we assume by your arguments, that you would be okay with a woman having an abortion just because she wants to, and not for any health or that type of reason.... a week before her due date?"

Once again, stretching my logic. Just because I did not state the limitations does not mean that there are none. The points I gave above only supported abortion when the woman's or the child's life is in danger. By my arguments, I do not support abortions for no reasons, but if if puts someone else's life in danger, then that practice could be condoned.

"if that is not what you support, then where do you draw the line, and why? and if not why are you arguing with me when i'm merely arguing that "sometimes" the fetus should be prioritized?"

I already stated in the comments, which you seemed to either ignore or not understand, that the word 'sometimes' threw off the resolution, and implied that any single argument from either side would fulfill the resolution.

Once again, we all know that killing a child one week before due date is immoral, and I would say that is murder. But that is because it is already fully developed. In addition, this resolution never mentioned that the mother can abort the baby whenever she wants to. That was only a point you brought up later, and claimed that I implied that. That is not true.

In conclusion, a mother 'sometimes' has the right to have her wishes of an abortion supported rather than the life of the infant. Since I have shown that almost always the mother should have the choice, I have negated this resolution and supported my arguments.

Thank you for this debate.

- Shadow-Dragon -
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Shadow-Dragon 2 years ago
Shadow-Dragon
Sorry for the delay. I'll post soon... Thanks for waiting.
Posted by Shadow-Dragon 2 years ago
Shadow-Dragon
Haha, I'll support the side I don't actually believe, but it should be interesting.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
of course you can, but it doesnt sound like you necessarily disagree with me.
Posted by Shadow-Dragon 2 years ago
Shadow-Dragon
So, can I debate this with you? I would like to accept...
Posted by Shadow-Dragon 2 years ago
Shadow-Dragon
Well, I understand the resolution. The problem is that the sometimes puts you at a huge advantage meaning that if you even prove ONE way it does, then you in effect have supported the resolution. I understand it, it's the word sometimes that throws it off.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
no that is not a better resolution. i am saying sometimes the fetus rights should take precedence. most people agree with this. most who take i don't know what they are accepting. but some do know what they are arguing, and they are who i am looking for.
Posted by Shadow-Dragon 2 years ago
Shadow-Dragon
Hello, I would like to debate this with you but I am unsure if the resolution is worded in a way that favors you... Would the resolution, in other words, just be "The right of the infant should take priority over the mother's wishes for abortion." ? The 'sometimes' throws it off. Please explain in the comments, and I would be happy to debate this with you.

- Shadow-Dragon -
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ChadIrvin 2 years ago
ChadIrvin
dairygirl4u2cShadow-DragonTied
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 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: I'm torn on this debate.