rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother
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, 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.
OK, you say that the rights of the infant should trump that of the mother's, but the mother is an established human being, who is probably going to live for a while longer, and if she believes that having the child would harm her, then she should be able to not have it. In essence, a bird in the hand is worth two in the tree. So even if this baby was Einstein, the mother is already alive, and should not have to forfeit her freedom, salary, reputation, etc. to a baby who is not even born yet.
second, i said that health exceptions could apply for the mother. you merely argue that health exceptions should apply despite what i said.
you do go on to say mother shouldnt have to forfeith things that matter to her. im not sure if this is about when the exceptions are in play, or at any point in the pregnancy. would you be okay with an abortion a week prior to due date if it was just for the whims of the mother? and you didn't address the points 1. mother assumed the risk of pregnancy 2. mother assumed the prenancy after the fact cause she didn't abort earlir when it was legally and morally grayer
rileyjj forfeited this round.
Second, health exceptions should NOT apply but to help the mother, not in favor of the baby. The mother can WANT to have the baby, but be to ill to safely have it, so she aborts. This only applies to help the mother.
Lastly, no "exceptions" come into play, and truthfully I hate abortion, but if I even thought an immediate abortion was ok, then hell yes, I would be cool with an abortion a week before the due date, it's this morally twisted mothers call!! She has COMPLETE control over her life. Morally grayer? Morals are pretty much sturdy, your logic may fudge it a little, but in your heart, you pretty much know how you stand.
In conclusion, the right to abort WHENEVER is solely the right of the mother. The mother is the one who is living. NOT the BABY!!! The rights f the baby should NEVER trump the rights of the mother for the previously stated reasons!
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.