The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SGM_iz_SekC
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

when both mother and baby can be saved when mom's life is at risk... abortion should not be allowed

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...
SGM_iz_SekC
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 616 times Debate No: 55638
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

if both mother and baby can be saved when mom's life is at risk... abortion should not be allowed

in cases where mother's life is at risk, but the healthy baby can be safely removed instead of aborted... and thus both mother and child saaved, this should be required. abortion should not be an option.

after six months or so, abortion in the US is restricted to only cases involving health of the mother. (to be sure, this includes much abuse for 'mental health' etc) if even a healthy baby MUST be aborted to save the mother, msot including me would agree it's the right thing to do. to be sure, however.... healthy babies are too often aborted in the name of saving the mother, when labor could be induced or teh baby somehow otherwise simply removed, instead of abortion
the mother shouldn't have the option to abort a healthy baby when it can jsut be removed.
SGM_iz_SekC

Con

If a mother's life can be saved because the fetus is draining her of too many nutrients, inducing labor or removing the fetus would also cause the fetus to die just as in abortion, so you have contradictory points there. If a mother can be saved by removing the baby from the womb (abortion) it is the mother's choice. Just because you are offended at the mother getting an abortion or you don't agree with her getting an abortion, doesn't mean you can outlaw it or that you are right. There is no way to safely remove a fetus when it is still growing and developing, because if there was, and trust me on this, no one would ever get an abortion again, unless they were raped. if the mother's life is threatened with something like and ectopic pregnancy, abortion is the only way for the mother to be saved. As long as the fetus is relying on the mother for nutrients to grow and develop for birth, the fetus cannot be removed safely from the protection of the mother's body without dying, so there is no way for this to happen.
You also cannot tell people, at least from a socioeconomic standpoint, what they can and can't do (i.e. gay marriage, abortion, etc.), because it is against basic human rights. The fetus is not a child yet, abortion is not killing a child, because the child is self-reliant in respect to absorbing nutrients necessary for growth and development , while the fetus is not. As long as the fetus is reliant on the mother for absorbing the nutrients from food and removing the waste from the fetus' body, it is the mother's choice what to do with that fetus. If the mother's health is at risk, then the fetus' is automatically at risk too, because it relies on the mother for everything.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

well, my opening statement said that the baby was 'healthy'. i meant this to mean it could live without the mother. your point is that the baby would die if removed anyway, and other points about reliance on the mother. i meant the baby is at a point that it could survive.
SGM_iz_SekC

Con

Well the child could not live without the mother, it needs all of those nutrients in order to live, so removing the fetus would result in its death. If the baby was at a point where it could survive, then the mother wouldn't have to worry about adverse health conditions relating to pregnancy would exist, because they would have appeared much earlier in the pregnancy. Your statement is faulted in that regard. In ectopic pregnancy the fetus could be considered 'healthy' in your regard but would need to be removed (obviously resulting in death) because of the danger of the pregnancy (ectopic pregnancy happens outside the womb, most likely in the Fallopian tubes but can occur elsewhere.). Your point that "instead of abortion the mother shouldn't have the option to abort a healthy baby when it can just be removed" (I fixed grammar/spelling errors for you), is flawed because abortion is the removal of a fetus from a mother's body which results in death. It is also in the ninth amendment in the US constitution that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," which is giving all citizens rights not given specifically in the constitution or other amendments, and not allowing abortion would infringe these rights.

My last round's arguments still stand strong. (NOTE FOR VOTERS: if you already read and understand my first arguments completely then skip these next paragraphs)

If a mother's life can be saved because the fetus is draining her of too many nutrients, inducing labor or removing the fetus would also cause the fetus to die just as in abortion, so you have contradictory points there. If a mother can be saved by removing the baby from the womb (abortion) it is the mother's choice. Just because you are offended at the mother getting an abortion or you don't agree with her getting an abortion, doesn't mean you can outlaw it or that you are right. There is no way to safely remove a fetus when it is still growing and developing, because if there was, and trust me on this, no one would ever get an abortion again, unless they were raped. if the mother's life is threatened with something like and ectopic pregnancy, abortion is the only way for the mother to be saved. As long as the fetus is relying on the mother for nutrients to grow and develop for birth, the fetus cannot be removed safely from the protection of the mother's body without dying, so there is no way for this to happen.

You also cannot tell people, at least from a socioeconomic standpoint, what they can and can't do (i.e. gay marriage, abortion, etc.), because it is against basic human rights. The fetus is not a child yet, abortion is not killing a child, because the child is self-reliant in respect to absorbing nutrients necessary for growth and development , while the fetus is not. As long as the fetus is reliant on the mother for absorbing the nutrients from food and removing the waste from the fetus' body, it is the mother's choice what to do with that fetus. If the mother's health is at risk, then the fetus' is automatically at risk too, because it relies on the mother for everything.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

it's just not true that the child can't live without the mother. there are points from viability and after that the baby can survive without the mother. that's the whole meaning of 'viability'. i'm not sure why con continues debating after i pointed out what he missed in the debate. perhaps i could have made it more clear, but in any case, this debate is pretty much over.

'If the baby was at a point where it could survive, then the mother wouldn't have to worry about adverse health conditions relating to pregnancy would exist, because they would have appeared much earlier in the pregnancy'

there are many cases where abortions happen after viability. these are called late term abortions. it's insulting to anyone who reads this's intelligence that i'd have to look that up and cite it.

you say ectopic pregnancies involve 'healthy' babies. maybe if you play with the words. and semantics. i've shown that healthy means able to survive without the mother. that you even make that argument is ridiculous.
SGM_iz_SekC

Con

Healthy: the level of functional or metabolic efficiency of a living organism
This has nothing to do with being able to survive without a mother it just means it can survive in total. Ectopic pregnancies involve healthy normal babies and after viability have to be aborted or the mother will die. Obviously you have no understanding of ectopic pregnancies. 36 states outright ban any late-term abortions that are not to save the life of the mother. This shows that even states that ban late-term abortion allow it if it is to save the mother. This is not about should late term abortion be allowed, but it is about should late term abortion be allowed when the mother's life is at risk. In the 9th amendment it gives the US citizens all rights not specifically stated in the other amendments or in the constitution. Denying anyone's rights violates this amendment. If the baby was at a point where it could survive, then the mother wouldn't have to worry about adverse health conditions relating to pregnancy existing, because they would have appeared much earlier in the pregnancy, and this is true! Pro's response to this shows their ignorance, "there are many cases where abortions happen after viability. these are called late term abortions. it's insulting to anyone who reads this's intelligence that i'd have to look that up and cite it." This has nothing to do with what I had said about health conditions not appearing that late in pregnancy! I understand that unnecessary late-term abortions happen, but it SHOULD be allowed when it is for the health of the mother!

My last round's arguments still stand strong. (NOTE FOR VOTERS: if you already read and understand my first arguments completely then skip these next paragraphs)

Well the child could not live without the mother, it needs all of those nutrients in order to live, so removing the fetus would result in its death. If the baby was at a point where it could survive, then the mother wouldn't have to worry about adverse health conditions relating to pregnancy would exist, because they would have appeared much earlier in the pregnancy. Your statement is faulted in that regard. In ectopic pregnancy the fetus could be considered 'healthy' in your regard but would need to be removed (obviously resulting in death) because of the danger of the pregnancy (ectopic pregnancy happens outside the womb, most likely in the Fallopian tubes but can occur elsewhere.). Your point that "instead of abortion the mother shouldn't have the option to abort a healthy baby when it can just be removed" (I fixed grammar/spelling errors for you), is flawed because abortion is the removal of a fetus from a mother's body which results in death. It is also in the ninth amendment in the US constitution that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," which is giving all citizens rights not given specifically in the constitution or other amendments, and not allowing abortion would infringe these rights.

If a mother's life can be saved because the fetus is draining her of too many nutrients, inducing labor or removing the fetus would also cause the fetus to die just as in abortion, so you have contradictory points there. If a mother can be saved by removing the baby from the womb (abortion) it is the mother's choice. Just because you are offended at the mother getting an abortion or you don't agree with her getting an abortion, doesn't mean you can outlaw it or that you are right. There is no way to safely remove a fetus when it is still growing and developing, because if there was, and trust me on this, no one would ever get an abortion again, unless they were raped. if the mother's life is threatened with something like and ectopic pregnancy, abortion is the only way for the mother to be saved. As long as the fetus is relying on the mother for nutrients to grow and develop for birth, the fetus cannot be removed safely from the protection of the mother's body without dying, so there is no way for this to happen.

You also cannot tell people, at least from a socioeconomic standpoint, what they can and can't do (i.e. gay marriage, abortion, etc.), because it is against basic human rights. The fetus is not a child yet, abortion is not killing a child, because the child is self-reliant in respect to absorbing nutrients necessary for growth and development , while the fetus is not. As long as the fetus is reliant on the mother for absorbing the nutrients from food and removing the waste from the fetus' body, it is the mother's choice what to do with that fetus. If the mother's health is at risk, then the fetus' is automatically at risk too, because it relies on the mother for everything.

Thank you for debating, I truly enjoyed this debate! And thank you to everyone that will vote or has commented!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Khana 2 years ago
Khana
dairygirl4u2cSGM_iz_SekCTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither made a particularly good point - they were arguing separate points entirely. I think either side could have had a much better presentation. That said, Con actually made proper points, and additionally, was an easier read, due to being fairly well written.