The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 787 times Debate No: 56059
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




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.


Challenge accepted. In real life I am Pro-Life, but for the sake of it, I will debate you.
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.
Debate Round No. 1


first, i said that the rights of the mother should 'sometimes' be trumped by the baby. you didn't make any point of addressing that.

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.
Debate Round No. 2




OK, I will address each point in order. The rights of the mother should NEVER be trumped by the unborn child. As I said in my previous argument, the mother has MORE rights than the unborn child because she is DESERVING of them. She is a living, breathing, human being. No matter WHAT, her rights are respected before, any perceived rights of a growing baby. (I truly don't think anything I'm saying is morally correct, but I want this victory) Also, you mention that the mother assumed the risk, so what? How many times have you bitten off more than you can chew, and quit because it was better for you, and maybe for the other person (if one was involved). We are human, unless you are some radical, you would know that we make mistakes, and a lot of them. In ANY case, the mother should be in full control of herself, if she wants to kill her unborn child, LET HER, it's not any of our business, let her live with herself, but it's her RIGHT! So this 'sometimes' stuff is junk, the "rights" of a NONEXISTENT baby should NEVER, NEVER, EVER trump the rights of the mother.

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!
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Abdab 7 years ago
I think this is a very good topic for debate, but this person doesn't seem to have studied.
Posted by Jevinigh 7 years ago
This person likely has little understanding of the medical specifics involved in conception and as far as I am concerned, is disqualified from being able to debate this topic.
Posted by Geogeer 7 years ago
"a mother assumed the risk of pregnancy" - you're setting yourself up for a whole heap of trouble if you are basing your argument off of that.
Posted by Abdab 7 years ago
I would like to take up this debate but pro needs to specify what consists of 'Later on in pregnancy'. How many weeks along is it acceptable to abort before the infant's needs trump the mothers? What situations is it okay to abort?
Posted by debatefox 7 years ago
i agree and it is pretty much saying if you take all the reasons why you should abort away from the fact why abort
Posted by Empiren 7 years ago
Pro needs to clarify when this is available and under what circumstances.

Too vague of an opening.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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