The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Defro
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Defro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 618 times Debate No: 56063
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)

 

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, 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.
Defro

Con

I accept this debate.

Burden of proof is on Pro.


Beginning Argument:

-Pro is claiming that the rights of a fetus should be valued above the rights of the mother. I disagree with this claim. It has been well established throughout history in many nations that all humans have equal rights, excluding criminals who have been proven guitly and punished. Essentially, no one is valued above another. This is called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1].

-Therefore, Pro's obligation in this debate is to disprove the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is a fraction of Pro's burden of proof.



Rebuttal:

"If you cause an accident, and the victim's body is somehow temporarily attached to your body, hypothetically speaking... a reasonable person would say the tortfeasor must at least wait a few months until they can be separated."

-This is a fallacious analogy. If I caused an accident, and the victim's body is somehow temporarily attached to my body, a reasonable person would demand that I, the one causing the accident, must be separated from the victim immediately, and the victim would agree because the victim doesn't like me because I caused an accident that made him or her a victim.

-Furthermore, Pro is comparing a fetus to a victim in this analogy. This is not always the case. If a woman was raped for example, and she got pregnant, then she is clearly the victim.


"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."

-Pro has contradicted herself. If it is "topped off" with the fact that she didn't bother to terminate before, then Pro has conceded that during the beginning of pregnancy, an infant has less rights than the mother.


"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. "

-Pro has conceded that it is alright to abort in certain cases.


"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."

-What if she was raped to pregnancy? She did not "assume" any risk at all. She never meant for it to happen, and she could do nothing. Certainly, then, it would be justified?



Sources:

[1] http://www.un.org...




Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con says i value the rights of the fetus above the rights of the mother. this is not true. i sometimes do, as is clearly stated in the thesis of the debate. even then, it's just a matter of speaking as to whether the rights are valued 'above' them, it just emans sometimes the mother does not get what she wants.

con says my analogy isn't sufficient. he says the victim in the accident would immediately want separated in my anaolgy. not always, though. if for some reason the victim could not be separated, for a number of months, any reasonable person would say the person that caused the accident must permit that. no one would say the pesron that caused the accident can kill the person she caused to be attached to her.

con points out rape etc. i could see making an exception for that maybe. i did state she needed very signiricant emotional problems. but anyways the problem is that i'm arguing about later abortions, and the woman has a responsibility to abort when it's morally grayer, sooner rather than later. she begins to lose her rights. i wont contest the rape point.
note, i did make exceptions for the mother's health.

con says i 'conceded that during hte beginning of the pregnancy' an infant has less rights. i never said otherwise. i in fact stated otherwise.
Defro

Con






Rebuttals:

"con says i value the rights of the fetus above the rights of the mother. this is not true. i sometimes do, as is clearly stated in the thesis of the debate."

-This is not true, I've said nothing of the kind. I was merely addressing the resolution at hand: "The rights of the infant of the womb should sometimes trump the rights of the mother."

-Pro has conceded that in sometimes she does value the rights of the fetus above the rights of the mother.


"con says my analogy isn't sufficient. he says the victim in the accident would immediately want separated in my anaolgy. not always, though. if for some reason the victim could not be separated, for a number of months, any reasonable person would say the person that caused the accident must permit that. no one would say the pesron that caused the accident can kill the person she caused to be attached to her."

-This is still a poor analogy.

-Using this exact same analogy, I'll use a real life example. Recently while hiking in the mountains, I passed a tree and

-Furthermore, Pro is assuming that the victim is conscious and can make decisions on whether or not it wants to live. If this analogy were to happen to a human, the victim would certainly not want to get killed, because the victim loves his life and doesn't want it to end and can think properly and make decisions. A fetus in a womb cannot make decisions (likely because its brain is not fully developed) and has not experienced life, therefore it can't decide whether it wants to live or die. It doesn't know if living is good or dying is good.


"con points out rape etc. i could see making an exception for that maybe."

-Pro has conceded to my contention.


"i'm arguing about later abortions,"

-No you aren't. Your resolution has little to do with abortions. Your resolution concerns with the rights of a fetus and a woman.

-
You're resolution is: "the rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother"

-And I am arguing that all humans have the same rights. We don't even have to be talking about abortions right now. We are talking about rights. That is the topic.



Addendum:

-I believe to continue on with the debate, we must establish what the rights of a fetus is in the first place compared with the rights of a woman.

-But to determine the rights of a fetus, we must establish whether or not a fetus should be considered human.

-The woman, is certainly considered human, therefore no matter what, she at least has the 30 basic Human Rights. [1]

-I leave it to you to prove whether or not a fetus should be considered human in this debate. If you don't, then you concede that the fetus has less rights than the woman. If you do, then it will be established that the fetus is a human, but according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [2], all humans have equal rights, therefore as a human, the fetus' rights do not trump the woman's rights.

-Your burden of proof is to disprove the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.




Sources:

[1] http://www.samaritanmag.com...;

[2] http://www.un.org...
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con said i value the rights of the fetus above the mother. then he denied he said it. however, he said in the first post.

"Pro is claiming that the rights of a fetus should be valued above the rights of the mother. I disagree with this claim"

maybe he was being sloppy, but he said it. i dont know what the point was in his 'declaration of rights' etc etc was if he wasn't trying to rebut statement that i was being aboslute about it.

con says i 'conceded' sometimes the mother's rights are not as valued, but i never contested it to begin with. maybe bad wording on con's part again, but if you take him at precisely what he says, he's all over the place.

con doesn't finish his analogy about a tree. im not sure what it was suppose to say. con merely distinguishes my analogy that the fetus doesn't now if it wants to live or die. however, we can assume that like a tree exists, and lives, it doesn't want to die. or many animals who don't have higher functiing capacity. by living, they are expressing an inherent desire to stay that way. and, it's implied that living things don't want to die.

con says i dont have to talk about abortion cause we are talking about rights in general. we've been talking about abortion all along, though, and it is what i mentioned in my openiing statement. it's some sort of twisted footwork to say otherwise.
con says 'all humans have the same rights'. but it's again a play on words, as if we value one person more than the other. the point is the mother won't always get what she wants. like if you cant smoke in public, it could be said that the public's right trumps yours. but then again, everyone has the same right so you could quibble about saying it that way. con is engaging in semantics to do that stort of argument.

the fetus must be considered a human later in pregnancy. how is it a human a few seconds out but not a few seconds in? anything else is meaningless technicalities and boundaries. con has the burden to show how it isn't a human then. if it is a human, sometimes the mother won't get what she wants all the time. that doesn mean all humans dont have the same rights etc...., again this arguemtnation is ridiculous footwork that means nothing to the points at hand.
Defro

Con

Rebuttal:

"con doesn't finish his analogy about a tree."

-I did not provide an analogy. I provided an example that corresponded with Pro's analogy. Pro's analogy was: "If you caused an accident and the victim of the accident is attatched to you, then you should not separate the victim from you."

-My example was: "I caused an accident by accidentally knocking a leech off a tree. The leech is a victim. The leech (victim) attatched itself to me, and I was justfied and certainly had the right to detatch it from me.


"we can assume that like a tree exists, and lives, it doesn't want to die."

-A tree can't want anything. The concept of desire does not exist to a tree, neither does any concept for that matter because trees don't have brains and therefore don't think. The same applies to a fetus. It can't want anything.


"it's implied that living things don't want to die."

-No it's not. As stated above, many living things can't want anything. Actually, a more accurate implication would mean that that all living things want to produce offspring, and while many living things have to live and not die to reproduce, that does not apply to the majority of living things, since the majority of living things are cells. Almost all cells reproduce through cytokinesis [1]. Cytokinesis is a process that splits a cell in two, producing two daughter cells and "killing" the original parent cell.

-The implication that all living things want to reproduce (and not live) is observable in mulitcellular organisms as well. A male praying mantis for example, wants to die. The dream of every male praying mantis is to get eaten by a female mantis (and die) because that would mean they have reproduced.

-Therefore this assertion is negated.


"con says i dont have to talk about abortion cause we are talking about rights in general. we've been talking about abortion all along, though, and it is what i mentioned in my openiing statement. it's some sort of twisted footwork to say otherwise."

-The resolution at hand is about the rights of a fetus and a woman. This is observable in the resolution. If Pro had wished to debate abortion directly, she should have


"con says 'all humans have the same rights'. but it's again a play on words, as if we value one person more than the other."

-Your "value" of someone does not change their rights. I value my mother more than my friend's mother. But they have the same rights.


"-I fail to see how that point supports your argument and proves that a fetus would have more rights than a woman.


"the fetus must be considered a human later in pregnancy"

-Very well then. A fetus is considered a human and therefore has the same rights as every human, therefore its rights trump no one's.


"how is it a human a few seconds out but not a few seconds in?"

-You are HIV negative a few seconds before the virus enters your body, but a few seconds when it's in your body, you are HIV positive. Same concept.

-A few seconds in, the fetus is attatched to the mother through the placenta. During this time, the fetus can be considered by some as an organ of the mother. However, a few seconds out, and the placenta is cut and it cannot be considered an organ anymore.

-Nevertheless, I concede that a fetus "a few seconds in" is a human, and so it has the same rights as everyone and its rights trump no one's.




Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
yes, i did. the opening statment talks about abortion. and various arguements about it. you even argued about it at first, did you not?
this debate lends itself to philsophy more than outside sources. such as, is it a person two seconds out but not two seconds in? that kind of stuff. i acknowledged early on personhood is up for grabs so i chose not to make it an issue.
Posted by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
@dairygirl4u2c

No you didn't. To be honest, your arguments were hard to understand and I had to re-read them a lot. You were not clear enough.

Furthermore, you still didn't meet your burden of proof as to why a fetus can't be aborted. All you provided was one analogy. And it was a poor analogy. Usually, in abortion debates, people would bring in more sources and real information to meet their burden of proof. You provided ONE analogy.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
i clarified in the opening statement that we were talking about abortion. you even began debating about about abortion. suddenly at the end you make it about semantics about what it means to have 'rights'.

if someone said 'a society's rights should sometimes trump a smoker's rights'. you would come along and say 'no everyone has the same rights, no one's is trumped by anyone else's!". it's at best a bunch of semantics. the point is that the smoker doesn't always get what he wants.
it's sad that with con at the helm, the debate would never get into whether that's the way it should be or not, as is clearly what is being argued about all along.
the burden of proof is met, if you put aside semantical points. thus, con is required to address it.
Posted by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
@dairygirl4u2c

You should have said that in the debate when you had the chance.

And it's not a law. It in fact, is an ideal established by the UN.

If the instigator of a debate does not specify and/or clarify the debate, the contender is free to interpretation as long as it is valid. I didn't "decide what I'm debating". I interpreted it differently.

For example, if someone started a debate: "Organs are horrible" but did not clarify that she is talking about the instrument and not the body parts, a contender is free to interpret "organs" as the body parts and debate from there.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
how is it something that even needs addressed? a declaration of human rights by the UN is not even something that is required of us all to abide by. even if it was, this is a 'should' 'should not' debate. about ideals not about what is or is not the law etc.
the real issue about abortion rights, con even addressed the abortion issue in his opening statement. he can't decide what's he's debating, but decides at the end to make it about semantics about what it really means to have 'rights'. just like the smoker analogy.
Posted by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
@dairygirl4cu2c

It wasn't made up by me, it was ESTABLISHED by me. If you wanted this debate to be about abortion, that should have been your resolution. Yet both your title and the first sentence in your argument was about rights.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
that is a burden made up by con. the burden of proof was actually about whether the mother should sometimes not have the right to an abortion, as is clearly what was discussed all along and what was mentioned in the opening statement. this is more subjective, but i actually significantly addressed the issue unlike con. therefore, con did not do as required in this debate.
Posted by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
@dairygirl4u2c

You did not meet your burden of proof. Your burden of proof was to disprove the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which you didn't.
Posted by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
@dairygirl4u2c

You did not meet your burden of proof. Your burden of proof was to disprove the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which you didn't.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
pro met her burden of proof. con must then respond to the actual points being argued about.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
dairygirl4u2cDefroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Firstly, please Pro use at least a spellchecker, you made multiple mistakes which were glaring. As such S&G points to Con. Regarding arguments I am giving these to Con, as he showed that someones human rights should not trump others. This is essentially the nail in the coffin for Pro's argument as then either the fetus is not human and the resolution fails as it cannot be an infant. Or the fetus is human (or infant) and then human rights triumph. Regarding sources they have to go to Con for providing them.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
dairygirl4u2cDefroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro basically doesn't address Con's argument. I get where you're going with this, but you tiptoe around the obvious response. Con keeps saying, over and over, that all humans have equal rights. The response is simple: that may be true, but that doesn't mean that all rights are equal. That seems to be the basis for your whole response, yet it never appears in your argument. You get close, saying that "sometimes the mother does not get what she wants," but you have to state what rights the mother is losing, what rights the infant loses through abortion, and how the rights lost from the infant trump the rights lost from the mother. I don't see that anywhere, so much as I find Con's argument lacking, I vote Con. I also afford him sources, as his were the only ones in the debate, and S&G, because Pro's was lacking.