The Instigator
alexcasey
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Th3TrUtHhUrTs
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

women should be able to freely get abortions up to 3 into pregnancy

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 376 times Debate No: 77970
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

alexcasey

Pro

As the title suggests im a pro life advocat. i believe abortion is a right to which all women should be able to obtain. if a woman decides after finding out that she is pregnant that having a child is something that would not be beneficial she should be able to excercise her better judgement to terminate a pregnancy. while many will argue that this is an infringement on a childs right to life what has to be questioned is whether a life has the right to impair another. child birth is an inherintly dangerous act. and also the right to life argument is self contradicting.a right to life means not to have someone elses will inflicted on your body, this is pregnancy in a nutshell. what also needs to be stressed is that arguing that its a womans fault she got pregnant especially if she had access to contraceptive is a ridiculous excuse to refuse abortion. it may have been admittedly poor judgement but this has everything to do with judging a womans behavior rather than the life of the child
Th3TrUtHhUrTs

Con

Haha, your lack of knowledge and research humors me. First of all, pro-life means you are for the living of the unborn child. Science indicates that right after conception, a fetus is alive. Unfortunately a lot of humans are irresponsible, selfish egotists that know the only way to eliminate responsibility for another life and legal consequences when choosing to abort their child is by taking advantage of their situation by calling it their "right" to decide the fate of their own child. This drives me insane due to the fact that a lot **(not all)** of the parents that decide to terminate their pregnancy are fully capable of delivering and raising a healthy child, yet they decide not to. I understand abortion in extreme situations but only in extreme situations. Therefore, I am simply stating, if the mother is at no harm to herself when giving birth to the child and the child will not have major issues once born that will only cause pain and agony, then there is no reason to abort.
Debate Round No. 1
alexcasey

Pro

What humors me is your lack of etiquette (for someone accusing me of little research you had no sources) Firstly I recognize I made an error in my opener, I'm pro-choice. Alive to me means an organism capable of self sustainability, that has consciousness, that is recognizable as an organism, or that has a heartbeat or brain activity none of these characteristics are present until well after 3 months. Your final statement is naive and flawed. It would be true if the only reason a woman wants an abortion is so they dont have to raise a child. This is false. Labor always carries risks (6th most common death in young women cdc.gov) I'd argue that anything that anything that could result in death is " a serious situation". It can cost up to 30k in medical fees, be extremely emotionally taxing to carry a child who isnt wanted and can impair a career. I'd argue being an unwanted child will result in pain and agony. Lastly by having right to do something you have a legitimate reason to do it.
Th3TrUtHhUrTs

Con

I respect your opinion. I"d argue it"s not sensible of you to make presumptions as to how an unwanted child would feel, I"ve met plenty of people who were born unwanted including myself and none of them live lives of "pain and agony" and I can assure you they feel lucky to have been given the chance to live. My stance as to when a fetus is alive still stands (http://liveactionnews.org...-... ). I never stated that a woman would only want an abortion as to not raise a child, I acknowledged that there were other reasonable motives as to why a woman would terminate a pregnancy. As far as killing an unborn child just because it will cost too much or will be a distraction from their occupation is pathetic, If someone really believes that the finances and attention will become too much of a burden, there is always adoption and child support. I agree, having the right to do something is a legitimate reason as far as it being legal. But is it morally right?
Debate Round No. 2
alexcasey

Pro

Your stance on when a fetus is alive is sourced from a completely biased source. To be "scientific fact " it should come from an unbiased website eg. abortionmedicalethics which says that a fetus isn't implanted until the 3rd month atleast, let alone have enough features to be defined as alive, thus it is unstanding.
You acknowledge raising a child isn't the only reason you would want an abortion but offer adoption as an alternative? My previous argument should have shown you that the reasons are much more numerous, adoption nor splashing out cash doesn't solve the problems of for example shunning.
I hate how you bring up "morality" . Morality is subjective and you are wrong to assume that we can argue about an opinion http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
You also call a fetus an unborn child. It is a fetus. We don't call an acorn an unborn tree.
Occupational destruction is a reason to abort. It is a huge element of your life and loss of it isn't supplemented by "child support".
Th3TrUtHhUrTs

Con

Th3TrUtHhUrTs forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
alexcasey

Pro

alexcasey forfeited this round.
Th3TrUtHhUrTs

Con

Th3TrUtHhUrTs forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
alexcasey

Pro

alexcasey forfeited this round.
Th3TrUtHhUrTs

Con

Th3TrUtHhUrTs forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by alexcasey 1 year ago
alexcasey
dear a_janis1i. would be under the impression that a fullly formed human would have more rights than a foetus. however should you have an opposing view. i will contradict that now.firstly you say that the foeutus and mother have equal rights. this isnt true even in countries where abortions are illegal, a mothers life will always be put before a foetus in dangerous labor cases. and you are correct your abilitllity to choose does contradict someones life. for example if i have a kidney i could donate i do not legally have to do so. similarly if i have a womb i could use to house the potential growth of a foetus it should not be enforced. your quote. also your quote is illogical, acting in an illogical manner is illogical.

also your argument that a cut off point is illogical is a ridiculous argument. by the same logic a legal drinking age is illogical also because at age 21 years and 1 day your not significantly older than 21 years. i use 3 months as i believe that this is a realistic amounnt of time to realise your pregnant and make up your mind to abort rather than allowing the fetus to grow much further. message me if u have other concerns
Posted by a_janis1 1 year ago
a_janis1
when stating "and also the right to life argument is self contradicting.a right to life means not to have someone elses will inflicted on your body," you also have created a contradiction. You are implying then that the your ability to choose for yourself trumps the right to life of someone else. So these arguments are entirely irrelevant and should thrown out because ""The right to swing my fists ends where another mans nose beings"- Oliver Wendell Holmes. The mother doesn't have any more human right than the fetus. Rather, they have equal fundamental rights.

Also, out of curiosity, lets discuss this time frame for life idea. What magical instantaneous transition happens between the microseconds of 2 months 31 days, and 23 hours to 3 months and 1 minute. Apparently some miraculous, scientifically verifiable event must must occur that makes the fetus inherently different from one second to the next? Does that make any sense? Of course not. Putting a time frame on abortion is silly. it makes no logical sense if you cant explain the instantaneous moment and difference that occurs in a fetus' life from 2 months 31 days and 3 months. Either the fetus always has the right to life or it never has the right to life. And quite frankly, it is easy to see that the fetus always has the right to life
Posted by alexcasey 1 year ago
alexcasey
yes bballcrook21 thank you i didnt spot that i will rectify this in my next debate. i am as you can probably tell firmly pro-choice.
Posted by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
This debate makes no sense. You state you are a pro life advocate then you state you are for abortion. Make up your mind.
No votes have been placed for this debate.