frame

Abortion should be illegal

Opening Argument

Persuade me to believe that abortion should be illegal. 
melef

Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • Not many people actually believe abortion should be illegal. The question is, where do we draw the line. If we can agree aborting a fetus 2 weeks after conception is not wrong, and we can also agree aborting a fetus 8 months after conception IS wrong, then it is clear there is somewhere we have to draw the line between what is a bunch of cells, to a life form that can feel pain.

    I am not learned enough on the subject of prenatal development, so I can not argue where the line should be drawn, however after doing the research I believe people get a much better idea of where the line should be at from a scientific point of view.

    Many people preach they are pro-choice, which is fine, but too often these same people, when pushed for more detail, do not have any scientifically backed point of view for what the deadline should be.
  • There is no right or wrong for where the line should be drawn since everybody can have different views on when the fetus is "living."
    Some people might even argue that once the woman becomes pregnant, then the fetus is automatically "living" since the fetus fulfills the criterias for a biologically alive animal.(metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli)

  • @BaconToes All cells are living. The line should be drawn to where the fetus matters as a human being. 
    Medic
  • So when does it matters as a human being?

  • Although all cells are indeed human, the fetus is dependent on the mother so the mother should have the choice whether or not to abort the baby.

    Pogue
  • PoguePogue 89 Pts
    A "right to life" is a right to not have somebody else's will imposed upon your body. Do women not have this right as well? The "right to life" also doesn't imply a right to live by threatening somebody else's life. Bearing children is always a threat the life of the mother. A "right to life" doesn't imply a right to use someone else's body to sustain a life. Women do not have a "responsibility" to have children, and certainly, don't assume such a responsibility by virtue of deciding to have sex. Adoption still requires women to carry a baby to term and then give birth, both of which are also inherently dangerous.Abortions are safe. Banning abortion violates a woman's right to control her own body.
  • FascismFascism 230 Pts
    edited December 5
    BaconToes said:
    Although all cells are indeed human, the fetus is dependent on the mother so the mother should have the choice whether or not to abort the baby.

    Pogue said:
    A "right to life" is a right to not have somebody else's will imposed upon your body. Do women not have this right as well? The "right to life" also doesn't imply a right to live by threatening somebody else's life. Bearing children is always a threat the life of the mother. A "right to life" doesn't imply a right to use someone else's body to sustain a life. Women do not have a "responsibility" to have children, and certainly, don't assume such a responsibility by virtue of deciding to have sex. Adoption still requires women to carry a baby to term and then give birth, both of which are also inherently dangerous.Abortions are safe. Banning abortion violates a woman's right to control her own body.

    @BaconToes
    @Pogue ;
    If the mother takes up the responsibility, then it is her job to take care of the fetus. I support abortion before 24 weeks, and that is plenty of time to get an abortion. Unless in a special case, for example if the mother or the baby dies, the mother should take care of the baby. 

    If I take up the job as a nurse, and I accept to take care of a patient who is on the verge of death, then I have taken up the responsibility. I should be sued if I decide not to do my job in the middle of taking care of the patient, and the patient ends up dying. 

    My argument is that if the mother doesn't do an abortion before 24 weeks then she has taken full responsibility. 
    BaconToes
  • BaconToesBaconToes 67 Pts
    edited December 5

    If the mother takes up the responsibility, then it is her job to take care of the fetus. I support abortion before 24 weeks, and that is plenty of time to get an abortion. Unless in a special case, for example if the mother or the baby dies, the mother should take care of the baby. 

    If I take up the job as a nurse, and I accept to take care of a patient who is on the verge of death, then I have taken up the responsibility. I should be sued if I decide not to do my job in the middle of taking care of the patient, and the patient ends up dying. 

    My argument is that if the mother doesn't do an abortion before 24 weeks then she has taken full responsibility. 
    I agree with you. But what if the doctor found out after 24 weeks that it would endanger either the baby or the mother?

    Fascism
  • PoguePogue 89 Pts
    But, why should someone else decide what a mother does with her body?
  • melefmelef 52 Pts
    Abortion should not be allowed due to it possibly using tax payer money for some abortions and killing children.
  • melef said:
    Abortion should not be allowed due to it possibly using tax payer money for some abortions and killing children.
    The taxpayers would obviously not paying for the abortion.
    The taxpayers only pay for state-funded hospitals. Killing children would be the most heavily debated topic of abortions. People can argue that the fetus is not 'alive' since they are dependent on the mother. Some will say that the time when the fetus can survive on its own, it is considered 'alive.' Usually, it is 24 weeks like @Fascism said. The 8th week is important since it is the time the fetus starts to grow major organs. The 25th week is also important since it is the time when the fetus shows consistent brain activity.
  • @BaconToes The mother took the responsibility of raising the child, not dying for him. So I would allow the mother to abort the fetus in this situation. 
  • @Pogue Once I again I point to the hypothetical situation, "If I take up the job as a nurse, and I accept to take care of a patient who is on the verge of death, then I have taken up the responsibility. I should be sued if I decide not to do my job in the middle of taking care of the patient, and the patient ends up dying." If the mother takes up the responsibility, then she has to take care of the fetus. 
  • PoguePogue 89 Pts
    Fascism said:
    @Pogue If the mother takes up the responsibility, then she has to take care of the fetus. 
    And what if she didn't?

  • PoguePogue 89 Pts
    Fascism said:
    @Pogue Once I again I point to the hypothetical situation, "If I take up the job as a nurse, and I accept to take care of a patient who is on the verge of death, then I have taken up the responsibility. I should be sued if I decide not to do my job in the middle of taking care of the patient, and the patient ends up dying." If the mother takes up the responsibility, then she has to take care of the fetus. 
    You say you should be sued not would or could be. 
    BaconToes
  • Pogue said:
    Fascism said:
    @Pogue Once I again I point to the hypothetical situation, "If I take up the job as a nurse, and I accept to take care of a patient who is on the verge of death, then I have taken up the responsibility. I should be sued if I decide not to do my job in the middle of taking care of the patient, and the patient ends up dying." If the mother takes up the responsibility, then she has to take care of the fetus. 
    You say you should be sued not would or could be. 
    He says he should be sued because since he had taken up the role of taking care of the patient, he has a duty to care for them.
  • PoguePogue 89 Pts
    BaconToes said:
    He says he should be sued because since he had taken up the role of taking care of the patient, he has a duty to care for them.
    And what if she did not take up that role? What if the baby is not wanted? 
    The threshold for viability keeps changing so the 24 weeks is not concrete. According to wired.com
    "When Edward Bell, a neonatologist at the University of Iowa Children’s Hospital, first began practicing medicine in the 70s, the line was 26 weeks. “The threshold has decreased by one week for every decade,” Bell says. “In the 90s we were all confident that 24 weeks was going to be absolute limit because of the biology.” But earlier this year, Bell published a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine showing reasonably good outcomes in preemies born at 22 weeks of gestational age. Two key technologies have pushed that date: the use of steroids, which can speed up fetal development, and surfactants that prevent lungs from collapsing after birth. Still, setting an absolute cutoff for fetal viability is impossible. “It depends on how you define it. Is it some babies survive? Half survive? Or most babies survive?” Bell says. At 22 weeks, many of the babies that survive end up with permanent health problems or disabilities. Bell is wary of his research being appropriated by the debate over abortion. To doctors and scientists, the question of when life begins isn’t a matter of gathering more evidence. “The science has very little to do with the answer,” says Gilbert. Every iteration and advance in the lab make the question even more the purview of philosophers and theologians. And lawyers." 
    According to theoutline.com 
    "A systematic review published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2005 noted that to experience pain, the fetus needs neural connections into the cortex. The cortex starts developing around 23 weeks, but the full system doesn’t seem to take shape until well beyond the point of viability. EEG recordings, which track the electrical waves of the brain, “suggest the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks,” the review concludes. In The New York Times, Dr. Mark Rosen, the study’s co-author, compared the fetus’ lack of fully developed feedback loops — essential to experiencing pain — to a non-working phone. “You can make a telephone call, but not till wires that connect our phones exist,” he said. “You can say the wire now exists, but nobody’s turned the service on.” The 2005 review also notes that some of the central evidence used by fetal pain proponents doesn’t indicate anything of the sort; “administration of anesthesia and analgesia serves purposes unrelated to reduction of fetal pain, including inhibition of fetal movement [and] prevention of fetal hormonal stress responses.”' "These medical improvements raise a whole host of questions. A 2015 study in The New England Journal of Medicine documented a 5 percent survival rate among 22-week fetuses with intensive intervention at hospitals with advanced NICUs. The survival rate without severe impairment is 3.4 percent. When it comes to determining fetal viability, it’s also worth noting that the international scientific community takes studies of viability from the U.S. “with a grain of salt,” as Dr. Fisk said, since the data relies on asking women to provide the date they last had their period (not ultrasounds from the first trimester, the standard in many other developed countries) to determine the age of the fetus." 
    According to slate.com 
    "“Many scientists would say they don’t know when life begins. There are a series of landmark moments,” said Arthur Caplan, professor and founding head of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center. “The first is conception, the second is the development of the spine, the third the development of the brain, consciousness, and so on.” That perspective, it turns out, has deep roots. It’s also one that resonates for many pregnant women who experience the embryo’s gradual passage to personhood on a visceral level."
    So now we know that the viability of a fetus is not determined, it is believed that it can not feel pain for up to 30 weeks, and scientists would say they do not know when life begins. 
    Also,  a common argument I have heard is to put it up for adoption. However, according to bustle.com 
    "This implies that the only reason a woman would want to get an abortion is to avoid raising a child, and that isn't the case. Depending on the circumstances, the mere act of having a child in a hospital can cost between $3,000 and $37,000 in the United States. Giving birth is dangerous, too: In the United States, pregnancy complications are the sixth most common cause of deathfor women between the ages of 20 and 34. Even before birth, there are costs to pregnancy. In addition to the whole "carrying another human being around in your stomach for nine months" thing, many women, particularly teens, are shunned and shamed for their pregnancies — not only by friends, families, employers, and classmates, but also by advertisements in the subway. There's also the risk of violent retribution from abusive partners and parents. In short, there are a lot of reasons a woman might seek an abortion. Adoption doesn't address all of them." 
    Ultimately, why should anyone get to decide what a woman does to her body when it doesn't affect you.

    https://theoutline.com/post/1144/the-pro-choice-movement-has-a-science-problem
    https://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/
    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2017/04/when_does_life_begin_outside_the_christian_right_the_answer_is_over_time.html
    https://www.bustle.com/articles/17141-how-to-argue-pro-choice-11-arguments-against-abortion-access-debunked

    Oh and in some states, it is very hard to get an abortion because there are very few and restrictions are very tight. So they might not have been able to get an abortion by 24 weeks which you say should be the cutoff. 
  • Pogue said:
    BaconToes said:
    He says he should be sued because since he had taken up the role of taking care of the patient, he has a duty to care for them.
    And what if she did not take up that role? What if the baby is not wanted? 
    The threshold for viability keeps changing so the 24 weeks is not concrete. According to wired.com
    "When Edward Bell, a neonatologist at the University of Iowa Children’s Hospital, first began practicing medicine in the 70s, the line was 26 weeks. “The threshold has decreased by one week for every decade,” Bell says. “In the 90s we were all confident that 24 weeks was going to be absolute limit because of the biology.” But earlier this year, Bell published a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine showing reasonably good outcomes in preemies born at 22 weeks of gestational age. Two key technologies have pushed that date: the use of steroids, which can speed up fetal development, and surfactants that prevent lungs from collapsing after birth. Still, setting an absolute cutoff for fetal viability is impossible. “It depends on how you define it. Is it some babies survive? Half survive? Or most babies survive?” Bell says. At 22 weeks, many of the babies that survive end up with permanent health problems or disabilities. Bell is wary of his research being appropriated by the debate over abortion. To doctors and scientists, the question of when life begins isn’t a matter of gathering more evidence. “The science has very little to do with the answer,” says Gilbert. Every iteration and advance in the lab make the question even more the purview of philosophers and theologians. And lawyers." 
    According to theoutline.com 
    "A systematic review published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2005 noted that to experience pain, the fetus needs neural connections into the cortex. The cortex starts developing around 23 weeks, but the full system doesn’t seem to take shape until well beyond the point of viability. EEG recordings, which track the electrical waves of the brain, “suggest the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks,” the review concludes. In The New York Times, Dr. Mark Rosen, the study’s co-author, compared the fetus’ lack of fully developed feedback loops — essential to experiencing pain — to a non-working phone. “You can make a telephone call, but not till wires that connect our phones exist,” he said. “You can say the wire now exists, but nobody’s turned the service on.” The 2005 review also notes that some of the central evidence used by fetal pain proponents doesn’t indicate anything of the sort; “administration of anesthesia and analgesia serves purposes unrelated to reduction of fetal pain, including inhibition of fetal movement [and] prevention of fetal hormonal stress responses.”' "These medical improvements raise a whole host of questions. A 2015 study in The New England Journal of Medicine documented a 5 percent survival rate among 22-week fetuses with intensive intervention at hospitals with advanced NICUs. The survival rate without severe impairment is 3.4 percent. When it comes to determining fetal viability, it’s also worth noting that the international scientific community takes studies of viability from the U.S. “with a grain of salt,” as Dr. Fisk said, since the data relies on asking women to provide the date they last had their period (not ultrasounds from the first trimester, the standard in many other developed countries) to determine the age of the fetus." 
    According to slate.com 
    "“Many scientists would say they don’t know when life begins. There are a series of landmark moments,” said Arthur Caplan, professor and founding head of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center. “The first is conception, the second is the development of the spine, the third the development of the brain, consciousness, and so on.” That perspective, it turns out, has deep roots. It’s also one that resonates for many pregnant women who experience the embryo’s gradual passage to personhood on a visceral level."
    So now we know that the viability of a fetus is not determined, it is believed that it can not feel pain for up to 30 weeks, and scientists would say they do not know when life begins. 
    Also,  a common argument I have heard is to put it up for adoption. However, according to bustle.com 
    "This implies that the only reason a woman would want to get an abortion is to avoid raising a child, and that isn't the case. Depending on the circumstances, the mere act of having a child in a hospital can cost between $3,000 and $37,000 in the United States. Giving birth is dangerous, too: In the United States, pregnancy complications are the sixth most common cause of deathfor women between the ages of 20 and 34. Even before birth, there are costs to pregnancy. In addition to the whole "carrying another human being around in your stomach for nine months" thing, many women, particularly teens, are shunned and shamed for their pregnancies — not only by friends, families, employers, and classmates, but also by advertisements in the subway. There's also the risk of violent retribution from abusive partners and parents. In short, there are a lot of reasons a woman might seek an abortion. Adoption doesn't address all of them." 
    Ultimately, why should anyone get to decide what a woman does to her body when it doesn't affect you.

    https://theoutline.com/post/1144/the-pro-choice-movement-has-a-science-problem
    https://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/
    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2017/04/when_does_life_begin_outside_the_christian_right_the_answer_is_over_time.html
    https://www.bustle.com/articles/17141-how-to-argue-pro-choice-11-arguments-against-abortion-access-debunked

    Oh and in some states, it is very hard to get an abortion because there are very few and restrictions are very tight. So they might not have been able to get an abortion by 24 weeks which you say should be the cutoff. 
    Please don't just quote everything. 
    They might not been able to get an abortion, but what we are saying is that they should be able to.
  • PoguePogue 89 Pts
    @BaconToes
    I was arguing that a limit should not be at 24 weeks. 
  • If you plant a seed, leave it for a day, and then take it out the next day, is it killing the plant? Many would say no, due to the fact that you have not given the seed enough time to begin growing.  The same could be said with abortions, seeing as though many get an abortion, or schedule one almost immediately after finding out about the pregnancy.
  • There are cases in which abortion is the most humane thing to do. For example, limb-body wall complex in which the organs develop outside of the body cavity or anencephaly in which the brain is missing. Forcing women to bring children into the world who will be dead at birth or who will die within a few days is a cruel thing to put them through. 

    We also fail to consider the amount of illegal abortions that happen. Women have often used coat hangers or knitting needles to try and induce abortions. Unsafe illegal abortions, not only self induced but by any other way carries the risk of death or causing serious health issues. I'm not saying that what this women are doing is correct, what I'm trying to say is that abortion is something that is happening wether it is illegal or not. 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch