The Instigator
squeakly54n6
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
MissGilz
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion after the baby becomes sentient is immoral and wrong

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 1 vote the winner is...
squeakly54n6
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2019 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,113 times Debate No: 120087
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)

 

squeakly54n6

Pro

My argument is a rather short and simple one so here it goes,
- Killing sentient beings is wrong
- Normally baby's become sentient around the 3 month period and 3 months to make a decision of what to do with the baby is long enough.
- In today's society where we have birth control and condoms, Having an unwanted pregnancy is very uncommon and most of the time it only happens due to birth control failing, Condoms breaking, Or rape. On that note 3 months is long enough for the unwanted pregnancy to be aborted.
MissGilz

Con

I accept your challenge.

First of all, This right of privacy. . Whether woman's decision to terminate or not.

Second of all, Person life begin is when they survive outside of womb. Embryos and fetuses are not independent or self decision making. Abortion is the termination of pregnancy not a baby. For instance, US Census count people in the world it's doesn't include the unborn.
Debate Round No. 1
squeakly54n6

Pro

" Embryos and fetus's are not independent or self decision making "
- I agree on that embyros and fetus's aren't capable of decisions however I disagree with this whole notion that people whom are mentally incapable have no right to life and here's why.
People whom are mentally deficient like the mentally disabled, Still are sentient and can feel pain. Therefore it is not moral to harm or kill a being that has emotion and can feel pain.
Also I did make a mistake on the title so to clarify I meant it is wrong to terminate a pregnancy when the fetus is sentient, My apologies.
- I have no idea if something in my brains not clicking or if you worded it weird but for the sake of the argument I would respectfully like you to clarify your first point you made. Once again my apologies.
MissGilz

Con

I do also have respect for your opinion. Not everyone are on the same page about abortion. I only argument what's fact and doesn't.

Legally, Mother does have greater authority when it's come to decision making for termination the pregnancy regardless of what terms.

Thank you for enjoy debating. Apologize is accepted.
Debate Round No. 2
squeakly54n6

Pro

- The mother while she should have the authority to abort the fetus before it is sentient, Should not have the right to abort it after it becomes sentient as sentient beings have a right to life due to them being able to experience pain. If you are pro abortion despite the fact that the fetus is sentient because it doesn't have intelligence, Like I previously stated you should be fine with the mass murder of mentally disabled people.
- Also just because its technically legal for the mom to abort the fetus after its sentient doesnt make it right. This sort of logic can be used to justify acts like slavery or the percecution of minoritys if those acts are deemed legal by the government.
- Thirdly I am not debating whether or not abortion after 3 or 5 months is legal, I am debating whether or not it is right on a moral level.
MissGilz

Con

"The mother while she should have the authority to abort the fetus before it is sentient, Should not have the right to abort it after it becomes sentient as sentient beings have a right to life due to them being able to experience pain.

----->According to sentient's argument, Fetuses cannot be held to experience pain. Not only has the biological development not yet happened to support pain experience, But the world after birth so necessary to the development of pain experience, Is also yet to happen.

If you are pro abortion despite the fact that the fetus is sentient because it doesn't have intelligence, Like I previously stated you should be fine with the mass murder of mentally disabled people.

----->Mentally disabled people are inalienable rights. It's impossible to compare with fetuses whom yet come to life. As you said killing, It's called murder while the mother only aborting is a termination. It's difference between killing and aborting as well mentally disabled people and fetuses.

Also just because its technically legal for the mom to abort the fetus after its sentient doesnt make it right. This sort of logic can be used to justify acts like slavery or the percecution of minoritys if those acts are deemed legal by the government.

----->Mother is a guaranteed life which mean it's more important than potential life the fetuses. Therefore it's nothing like in other cases when it's not exist in the world but it's exist dependable the cell of body in it's mother womb.

- Thirdly I am not debating whether or not abortion after 3 or 5 months is legal, I am debating whether or not it is right on a moral level.

----->I'm not sure what is your definition of moral level. As far I know that fetuses doesn't fit in this topic. Because it cannot make a decision or ability to notice their behavior. Your debating are little bit confused.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
Anti-abortion people state that people don't gain moral significance merely by passing through the birth canal. Many people never passed through the birth canal to begin with. You seem to think being taken out of the woman has moral significance but that just seems a strange stance don't you think?
Posted by MissGilz 3 years ago
MissGilz
@thoht
I have no against whether woman's decision because I do not know the whole story behind every women. Depend on their situation such as raped, Abused, Teenages, Or medical reasons. Sometime they would delay to abort due money difficult. Many reason so that I can't determine whether if it's wrong or not regardless on what terms of pregnancy. But I do know that I am not agree the idea about being kill a person who exist in the life. That's commit a murder as by the law.
Posted by MissGilz 3 years ago
MissGilz
@ squeakly54n6

Ohh I understand. Thank for clarifying. Have a good day too.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
@Miss

I'd argue a fetus with brain activity is parallel enough with a baby that is born but requires life support to live.

I imagine you wouldn't be OK with killing infants that can survive outside of the womb with assistance of technology. You would consider it a person, I imagine, Regardless of whether or not it can sustain itself. Premature births happen and I imagine you aren't OK with killing these kids even if they are on life support.

For me brain activity is where one gains personhood. You are building who you are with all brain activity. Prior to this, I have no qualms with abortion.

Saying someone becomes a person when they can sustain themselves outside of the womb is a line I doubt you draw consistently across all these cases. Most people would be uncomfortable with that line.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
@Ara

Of course, That is why in my ideal society I would ban abortions past 2-3 months after brain activity has started. Just because one is pro choice that doesn't mean we are for abortions all the way to delivery. That is a common mistake. Most people randomly put this number at 24 weeks with no justification. I justify allowing abortions past 2-3 months currently because of technological and practical limitations. Practical limitations such as only 1-2 abortion clinics in entire states because of anti-abortion political influence, Et cetera. These present real challenges for females trying to abort prior to the 2-3 month line that I would draw. So in effect, Anti-abortion policies make it harder for me to accept banning abortions past 2-3 months.
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
squeakly54n6
@MissGliz
Aright its no problem but in the future please don't make new arguments when I can't respond you them. Good day to you
Posted by MissGilz 3 years ago
MissGilz
Yes to respond. However this round are end which I didn't pay attention to it. Again I'm still learning about this debating. If I'm wrong please corrected me. But I'm not mistakes about my argument even although it wrong way to put in conduct. I would love to learning to be better :)
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
squeakly54n6
You were bringing up new arguments such as that mentally disabled people and fetus's are different and that fetus's can't experience pain/ aren't sentient.
Posted by MissGilz 3 years ago
MissGilz
Not sure what it mean. That my second time doing this debating. If I made mistake then I'm apologize. But it's not new argument just respond to your last comment.
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
squeakly54n6
Con its bad conduct to bring up new arguments in your last response
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
squeakly54n6MissGilzTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is correct in a perfect world without practical considerations. His points were brought up and Con hid behind defining killing an unborn fetus as 'termination' rather than 'killing.' Con was legitimately wrong on several points he brought up in R3 where Pro could not disprove them. But, both sides arguments were flawed enough that neither are convincing. In the end, spelling goes to Pro. One point is all that I can in good conscience give here.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.