The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MasturDbtor
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

prochoice folks should agree: babies born during botched abortions should be finished off

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...
MasturDbtor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,209 times Debate No: 55946
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

what does the specific location inside of or outside of the womb matter? what signnificance is a few inches? the people who were suppose to terminate the fetus is now suppose to suddenly rush to saving it? how inconsistent is that. there was merely a technical malfunction. just finish the job.
MasturDbtor

Con

A woman's right to an abortion is based off of her being sovereign over her most personal piece of property, her own body.

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.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

what difference does an inch make? if they are allowed to kill inside, why not outside, if it was merely a mistake? you provide a meaningless distinction, less than an inch etc.

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.
MasturDbtor

Con

Pro makes a valid point about suffering. In cases where certain death that is to say terminal illness results from the baby being removed then euthanasia to end suffering could be justified.

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.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

it is possible to remove the baby without killing it. they do it all the time, kill it, inject drugs into the mother, and induce the baby to come out.

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.
MasturDbtor

Con

Because before viability there is no chance of the fetus surviving anyways, so it should not be put through unnecessary suffering.

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.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jingram994 2 years ago
Jingram994
"you are just a fetus who got past the abortionist.......the abortionist could catch up with you at any time. Hitler was a great abortionist, aborted millions of people he didn't want."

No; abortion aborts a pregnancy, not a person; the fact that the fetus (which almost invariably is not a person by the point at which the abortion is done) usually cannot survive outside of the womb, and thus usually dies, is a side effect of the procedure, not the intended result.
You are also being a complete idiot by conflating the abortion of unwanted pregnancies, which for the most part do not actually harm any people, and are still medically or ethically necessary even when they do, with the systematic slaughter of millions of actual people purely as a racial scapegoat.
Posted by lifemeansevolutionisgood 2 years ago
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Without EVOLUTION we would not be here as humans, so the fact that we as humans have life means that evolution is good (subjective to me since good and evil are subjective concepts). Also, Godwin's Law again, you lose once more.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
please explain how you think life means evilution is good.......and again, thank you for copying my name, I'm glad you like it and I hope you have fun with it.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
you are just a fetus who got past the abortionist.......the abortionist could catch up with you at any time. Hitler was a great abortionist, aborted millions of people he didn't want.
Posted by jzonda415 2 years ago
jzonda415
"Intent has NOTHING to do with it. Imagine you are stuck in a well and a person is falling from an airplane. You have a ray gun that would disintegrate the person. Is it immoral to fire the gun in order to save your own life?"

As you are using self defense to protect your life, I suppose. However, protecting one's life is different from why most abortions occur. Intent still matters in cases where life is not threatended.

"A more real life example what if a crazy person is threatening me with a knife because voices in his head said that I needed to be stabbed in order to drive a demon out of me and promised him I wouldn't die from it. Then he has good intentions. Do I still have a right to self-defense? Yes."

You're equating a right to defend your life with abortion. The action and intent of a person with a knife running at you is not the same as an unborn child's who in ~99.9% of cases isn't hurting the mother and in 100% has no intent to do so.

Okay, NOW I'm done.
Posted by MasturDbtor 2 years ago
MasturDbtor
"That person has not intentionally done any harm and does not deserve such treatment. Similarly, the fetus has not intentionally invaded the body of a woman. Using lethal action against it, therefore, is an immoral act and the taking of an innocent life. Hence, a mother's basic bodily rights can't take precedence over the fetus' as using lethal force against humans of a fetus' nature is wrong."

Intent has NOTHING to do with it. Imagine you are stuck in a well and a person is falling from an airplane. You have a ray gun that would disintegrate the person. Is it immoral to fire the gun in order to save your own life?

A more real life example what if a crazy person is threatening me with a knife because voices in his head said that I needed to be stabbed in order to drive a demon out of me and promised him I wouldn't die from it. Then he has good intentions. Do I still have a right to self-defense? Yes.
Posted by Jingram994 2 years ago
Jingram994
"That person has not intentionally done any harm and does not deserve such treatment. Similarly, the fetus has not intentionally invaded the body of a woman. Using lethal action against it, therefore, is an immoral act and the taking of an innocent life. Hence, a mother's basic bodily rights can't take precedence over the fetus' as using lethal force against humans of a fetus' nature is wrong."

Please also keep in mind that, prior to the 26 week period, the fetus is not a person and does not have rights which can be violated. It logically cannot and should not be treated any different to any other growth until it shows signs of higher brain activity. Is removal of a benign tumor immoral? What about male masturbation or the natural human menstrual cycle (both of which also result in the 'death' of things that will, given the right environment, become persons one day)? If not, why is there a distinction in this regard?

See my previous post for why I believe there is reasonable precedent (both moral *and* legal; by law you are allowed to force people who do not have the right to be there off of *your* property even if you have good cause to believe that this will lead to their deaths) for continued legality of abortion even after this point, assuming otherwise 'ordinary' circumstances (It should also be kept in mind that the 26 week point is actually *after* abortion is no longer legal in most instances, and less than 2% of abortions occur after that point even when it is legal).

I am also going to stop now.
Posted by Jingram994 2 years ago
Jingram994
"The ability to consent to a pregnancy is not justifiable reason enough to kill an unborn child. The fetus did not intentionally enter a woman"s womb, and in most cases its presence there is actually a result of the woman"s decisions. While bodily violation is not necessarily intentional, it does not make the intentions of the violating party irrelevant. There is a fine distinction in moral guilt of someone who has accidentally brushed their hand against another person and someone who has purposefully groped another person. In either case, the person whose autonomy was violated of has a right to put a stop to the action. They might resort to force, even lethal force, to prevent someone from groping them."

There is already precedent for forcible removal of a person from your body (being necessarily present within your body, using it's resources and possibly posing a direct threat to your health is a tad 'stronger' than just touching your body; this also means your analogy does not work very well. Being groped does not change your body, and possibly life, permanently, and does not physically and emotionally screw you around for 9 months); the thought experiment of a random person, let's say a famous musician, who is clearly alive and sapient, who has been life-supported to your body without your consent.
They are stuck to you for nine months, using your body to keep themselves alive. After this period, they will be capable of leaving and living independently of you.
You did not consent to this (remember, 'consent to have sex' =/= 'consent to get pregnant'). Maybe the person attached to you did, maybe they did not; this is not relevant. Is the first person in this situation *obliged* to allow the second person to make free use of *their* body?
As it is *your* body that they are living off of without your consent, you *absolutely* have the right to forcibly remove them, even if they are not 'to blame' and even if this will very likely result in their deaths.
Posted by Jingram994 2 years ago
Jingram994
Pretty much. I am also denying that the fetus *has* any rights to violate in the first place before 26 weeks. You necessarily need to be a conscious (In the broader sense of *having consciousness*, not 'being conscious'; people who are asleep or in a coma still qualitatively exist as conscious, sentient individuals. Brain-dead bodies and fetuses with no higher brain function at all do not.

I'm, uhh, going to make a few more posts to clarify more. I hope that's okay and I'm not stepping on the toes of the people who are *actually* debating here.
Posted by lifemeansevolutionisgood 2 years ago
lifemeansevolutionisgood
LifeMeansGodIsGood:
A. Godwin's Law, you lose.
B. A fetus isn't sentient, I am. There is a difference.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SPENCERJOYAGE14 2 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
dairygirl4u2cMasturDbtorTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
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.