prochoice folks should agree: babies born during botched abortions should be finished off
Debate Rounds (3)
If you throw a homeless person out of your house knowing full well they have little chance of survival on the streets it is not considered murder. It is your house and you have the right to kick them out.
Similarly a woman has a right to kick the baby out of her womb.
But once it is out of her womb she has no right to demand its death. If the baby manages to survive outside of her womb then it has a right to life just as the person evicting the homeless person can not follow the homeless person afterwards and kill them if they manage to survive.
In the future artificial wombs may be possible and then that should be required for women who want to end their pregnancies. That way the woman's right to her own body would be preserved and at the same time the baby's right to life would be respected and we can all be happy.
to use your example, a person is not allowed to kill the homeless man in the house. they must kick them out, call the police, perhaps in some cases go for eviction etc. sure, lethal force is allowed sometimes, but only when there is no other option. to follow your reasoning fully, the baby should be merely removed, and if it dies, so be it.
so, is the only reason the baby terminated so as to avoid the suffering that would be involved, and perhaps deformed growth? if that's the case, there's no reason it couldn't happen outside of the womb. here we're not talking about soverignty and risk to the mother. we're talking about termination for other purposes.
if lethal force inside the womb is permissible, outside should be. and if it's not permissble, it could very well apply the other way too. if we dont want to go down the road of not making it permissble, we still have consistency and other policy considerations to evaluate as mentioned.
you've not demarcated a significant point for why lethal force is okay inside the womb, but not outside.
Otherwise the baby should be given a chance of survival.
Pro completely ignores my line of reasoning. A woman's right to an abortion isn't about some sort of right to kill, it's a right to sovereignty over her own body and the death of the baby is incidental to that. Hence if it were possible to remove a baby from the womb starting from conception without killing the baby then the law should require that. Unfortunately that is not currently possible.
For another example if someone were about to die unless you were hooked up to them you would not be legally required to do so, because your body belongs to you. Similarly requiring a woman to provide nutrition and sustenance to a fetus as well as a risk to her own health (as people still die from complications related to pregnancy and childbirth) violates her right to bodily autonomy.
you continue on about how it's her right to soverignty. i'm not arguing against abortion, though. you just argue it for no reason. you in fact ignore my points about soverinty not really being an issue, when the baby could be removed. or even if it couldnt, if it's a 'botched abortion' and the baby is outside the womb, teh soverignty issue isn't there any more.
con basically has continued to give no meaningful or signfiicant distinctions for why termination is permissible inside the womb but not outside.
And in some cases the means of removing the fetus may mean the fetus dies and modifying the means so the fetus may live may pose a threat to the health or life of the mother.
As for sovereignty not being an issue outside of the womb. You're right it's not an issue. Hence why in a botched abortion the doctors should try to help the baby survive if the baby has a chance. If not the doctors should give the baby euthanasia. Saying so does not support pro's position since I only support ending the baby's life if there is no chance of survival. Otherwise the baby should be given a chance to live and given all the medical support the doctor's can. The woman need not be on the hook for those medical expenses and should be able to leave after the abortion and not have to even know if the baby survives or not.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SPENCERJOYAGE14 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Con won because he argued best, he showed that the mother really didn't need to kill the baby outside the womb and it wasn't choice to be made. He also won conduct because Pro came across as she was attacking him and other people's character and ideas.
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.