Instigator / Pro
21
1487
rating
7
debates
35.71%
won
Topic
#241

Abortion: The Woman Should NOT have the Right to Choose, with one exception.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
3
Better sources
6
2
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

PGA2.0
Judges
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
1 debates / 4 votes
Voted
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
14 debates / 8 votes
No vote
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
27 debates / 191 votes
Voted
FaustianJustice's avatar
FaustianJustice
0 debates / 2 votes
Voted
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Judges
Contender / Con
11
1551
rating
9
debates
66.67%
won
Description

Pro contends that abortion is taking the life of a human being and therefore should be considered murder/a wrong, not a woman's right to choose.

Con contents that abortion should be the woman's right to choose and that it is not wrong for the woman to abort that life, whether the woman chooses to do so before or after the "age of viability" of the unborn.

Termination of pregnancy because of a threat to the life of the mother will be the exception to the rule (i.e., tubal pregnancy/Ectopic pregnancy).

The debate aims to convince others that the position held is the most reasonable of the two.

1st Round - Pro Definitions
1st Round - Con Definitions and Acceptance
2nd Round - Opening Arguments
3rd Round - Rebuttals and Additional Arguments
4th Round - Rebuttals and Additional Arguments
5th Round - Summary and Final Rebuttal; No New Arguments

I request that forfeiting one round will automatically grant the opponent the win. Please consider this before accepting.

"Thank you for the detailed RFD, WF. I appreciate the guidance!"

It was good! I appreciated FaustianJustice honesty too.

-->
@whiteflame

Thank you for the detailed RFD, WF. I appreciate the guidance!

"All this rehashing the debate here in the comments is pointless. That being said, I will bow out. Good luck to you, sir." - SKEP1

Thank you for your good will!

-->
@PGA2.0

All this rehashing the debate here in the comments is pointless. That being said, I will bow out. Good luck to you, sir.

-->
@SkepticalOne

So, unless you can show me that the unborn is not a human being, which you have confirmed it is, then it should have the same inalienable rights as every other human being. There should not be a distinction at birth. That is ridiculous and unequal treatment of a class or group of human beings.

-->
@SkepticalOne

"The woman, just like anyone else, has a right to control her own body. This right does not magically go away if she becomes pregnant. So, the bestowing rights at birth is the only logically consistent solution where rights are inalienable." - SKEP1

I agree the woman does have the right to control her own body, to an extent. There is no disputing this. The limit is where she uses her own body to hurt or kill another body. That is a different matter.

You're right, the law does not magically go away. If the woman uses her body to hurt or kill another human being (outside the womb) she is charged with a crime. Unfortunately, the law is discriminant and not equal in the case of the unborn human being. It is not given what every human being should be given, inalienable rights, universal rights to every human being. The most basic right of an innocent human being is the right to life. With the most vulnerable human, the one who should have the greatest protection, the right is stripped from them by unjust laws that do not follow the Declaration of Independence.

When you say, "the woman JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE," you make an exception because you are not treating her in the same manner as everyone else. If you use your body to kill another innocent human being either intentionally (murder) or in particular cases because of negligence (manslaughter) it is a crime. So you are not being consistent in your thinking here. I can do with my own body as I see fit as long as what I am doing does not hurt someone else, or myself. If I went around pounding my head against a brick wall I would probably be locked up and prevented from hurting myself. If I constantly went around pounding my head into someone else's head I would expect the same results. I would be classed a danger to myself and/or others. So the freedom to do what you want with your body is a limited freedom. The crazy abortion laws are not consistent with the principle of bodily harm to others.

-->
@SkepticalOne

Inalienable rights: "The word refers to a natural right that cannot be revoked by an outside force. ... In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson (using the un- variant) wrote that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" including "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

"Something that is yours forever, that can’t be taken away and given to your little brother instead? That something would be called inalienable. The word refers to a natural right that cannot be revoked by an outside force."

"The word inalienable is often linked to human rights — you’ve probably heard the term “inalienable rights.”

"an inalienable right is something that can’t be given or taken away by a government or another legal power."
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/inalienable

"Inalienable right refers to rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else, especially a natural right such as the right to own property."
https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/inalienable-right/

"Personal rights held by an individual which are not bestowed by law, custom, or belief, and which cannot be taken or given away, or transferred to another person, are referred to as “inalienable rights.” The U.S. Constitution recognized that certain universal rights cannot be taken away by legislation, as they are beyond the control of a government, being naturally given to every individual at birth, and that these rights are retained throughout life. To explore this concept, consider the following inalienable rights definition."
https://legaldictionary.net/inalienable-rights/

Yet, this is what is done in the case of abortion. The inalienable rights of one class or group of human beings are stripped away from that class by unfair laws that discriminate.

-->
@PGA2.0

The woman, just like anyone else, has a right to control her own body. This right does not magically go away if she becomes pregnant. So, the bestowing rights at birth is the only logically consistent solution where rights are inalienable.

-->
@PGA2.0

Inalienable: Not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/inalienable

-->
@SkepticalOne

You say, "rights are inalienable" but you do not give one human being the same rights as another. Again you use the term "entity" to disguise what we are speaking of, a human being. It is a term used to diminish what the unborn human being is from conception. What about its inalienable rights? Just because a person or human being is located within another human being, in a particular environment, that does not change what the being in this environment is. It is not PART of the woman. It is its own human being in its own right.

The "part of the woman" is a fatal flaw in your argument, IMO. It is a separate individual human being who relies on another human being for its life because she is looking after it and has the responsibility to look after it until it becomes self-sufficient or others take that responsibility from her.

"Scientist do not assign personhood, and if they did,
"Personhood" is a legal distinction and scientists are not qualified to make that call." - SKEP1

If scientists can't make that call then neither can lawyers and judges. They should give the unborn "inalienable rights" too since it is a human being. If no one can determine when a person begins the unborn SHOULD be given the benefit of the doubt, not butchered, and that is what happens at some stages of pregnancy - the unborn is ripped and torn apart by medical instruments.

If human rights are inalienable, like was argued in the Declaration of Independence in your country, then the unborn SHOULD have those rights that we decree on every other human being. Even your UN statement recognized that all humans are equal, yet they treat the unborn human as unequal. They contradict their own standard which is hypocrisy.

A agree that person and personality can be thought of as two distinct things. A person is, however, a personal being with a personality.

"...you do not have a legitmate authority supporting your notion of personhood beginning at conception." - SKEP1

Whether or not I have legitimate authorities is something we can argue, but the greater point is you don't know, then you, the woman, the doctor, the politician should give the unborn the benefit of the doubt. Anyone can legalize something unjustly if they have the power to do so. It happens all around the world every day.

-->
@PGA2.0

Most all of this has been addressed in the debate. Scientist do not assign personhood, and if they did,
"Personhood" is a legal distinction and scientists are not qualified to make that call. If there were a omnibenevolent god interested in the rights of humanity, I feel he/she/it would accept my view preserving inalianable rights as superior. You can claim the support of god, but so can I. We will have to wait until god verifiably endorses one of us. 😉 In other words, you do not have a legitmate authority supporting your notion of personhood beginning at conception. Moving on - you are conflating personality and personhood. Any quote of mine about personhood has nothing to do with personality. I can argue my view, but I cannot understand it for you. I have emphatically stated my position that personhood starts at birth and provided my reasoning including 'rights being inalienable'. Assigning personhood to an entity *inside* a person would necessitate rights being taken away. It is quite dishonest to suggest this has not been addressed many times.

-->
@SkepticalOne

By your thinking in Round 4 it can't be a person until it is an individual, which scientifically speaking, it is from conception. Thus, with such logic, it would be a person from birth. You mistakenly, IMO, and in the opinion of scientists that I quoted, identified the unborn as a part of the woman's body and not in an environment. You cited that persons are not a location. I never argued human persons are a location, but they are in a location. That location is within the woman's womb. Legally, you can define them out of existence by stating personal rights start at birth, but to do so it would be reasonable to prove exactly when person beings. Legally, those in power can make anything "legal."

I identified natural rights (something we have because of our natures) is different from legal rights. By nature, I argued we are all human persons by nature, because of what we are. I invite you to prove otherwise.

-->
@SkepticalOne

"Previously, I was reading personal as personable. Excuse my misapprehension. My last response appropriately addresses the argument." - SKEP1

No problem, thanks!

"Stating personality is not natural to all human beings" - ME
"Show me where I made such an assertion, and we can go from there." - SKEP1

POST 71 - "'Personhood' is not natural, unless you consider a concept of humanity to be natural, in which case an appeal to nature is irrelevant."

ROUND 3: "That being said, the line of distinction I am interested in is when human becomes person, and that occurs at birth."

You agreed human beings begin at conception but that person begins at birth, as claimed by a panel of judges on the supreme court that made abortion law up to a particular point of development. What scientific evidence do you have to back this statement? Judges aren't embryologists or doctors or scientists.

ROUND 4: "My position is fetuses are an extension of a woman’s body, and cannot be considered a person until they are well and truly an individual human being."

According to scientists, a human being is an individual and uniquely new being at conception.

-->
@SkepticalOne

"You're talking in circles, buddy. Follow the logic: if personality is not exclusive to humanity, then (unless you're advocating non-human persons) it is not a relevant attribute for distinguishing personhood. And do you think arbitrarily adding 'personal' to something makes it a person? No response other than questioning the logic behind this is required from me." - SKEP1

Sure it is reasonable. Every human being is a personal being. God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are personal beings. Thus, personality is not exclusive to humanity, providing God exists, which I have no doubt about.

Again, I asked you to identify when personhood begins. If you can't do that then you need to give the unborn from conception the benefit of the doubt. So, when does personhood begins, and please back up your claim? You have not responded to date.

I made my position clear. Personhood starts at conception. It is the nature of a human to be a personal being. Show me otherwise. What we are is built into our DNA code. When the code of the woman and man unite a separate unique individual human being exists, PER SCIENCE. It is not the woman's parts growing inside her, like a tumor or cyst, it is a newly formed human being with its own operating system in its basic form. What it is is directed from the inside, not from without. It doesn't start out as a dog, grow into a cat, then at a later stage of development turn into a human being. That is what it is from the start, from conception onwards. Every human being is a personal being, no matter how developed that personal nature is.

-->
@PGA2.0

"Stating personality is not natural to all human beings"

Show me where I made such an assertion, and we can go from there.

Previously, I was reading personal as personable. Excuse my misapprehension. My last response appropriately addresses the argument.

-->
@PGA2.0

You're talking in circles, buddy. Follow the logic: if personality is not exclusive to humanity, then (unless you're advocating non-human persons) it is not a relevant attribute for distinguishing personhood. And do you think arbitrarily adding 'personal' to something makes it a person? No response other than questioning the logic behind this is required from me.

"Personhood" is not natural, unless you consider a concept of humanity to be natural, in which case an appeal to nature is irrelevant. Also, 'personailty' is not unique to humans, and 'personal' is a trait of *some* humans, so I don't understand how any of this makes a case for an entity being a *person*. Just because a word has "person" at its root doesn't make it meaningful in a discussion on personhood." - SKEP1

So you are saying that it is not in our nature to be personal beings?

No, personality is not unique to human beings, but is it the nature of all human beings to be personal beings? Thus, it is natural for human beings to be personal beings.

Stating personality is not natural to all human beings (when they are permitted to develop what they naturally are and something that they possess by their natures) is something you would need to develop and establish, as I asked you to - that is when a person starts. So far, you have just asserted it.

-->
@PGA2.0

"Personhood" is not natural, unless you consider a concept of humanity to be natural, in which case an appeal to nature is irrelevant. Also, 'personailty' is not unique to humans, and 'personal' is a trait of *some* humans, so I don't understand how any of this makes a case for an entity being a *person*. Just because a word has "person" at its root doesn't make it meaningful in a discussion on personhood.

-->
@SkepticalOne

"Instead of abortion, I think a debate on personhood would have been more appropriate." - SKEP1

Maybe, but you have the same problem. Is personhood a natural trait of being human? Do you know of human beings, left to develop, that are not personal beings? IOW's is personality a part of what makes us human and thus part of our very nature. If you are not sure then you SHOULD give the benefit to the unborn. So, you would have to establish when a human being becomes a personal being if not so by their very nature. When does that happen? I know some have legislated personhood on beings at birth, others have not. Why do politicians and lawyers, not scientists decide when a human being is a personal being?

"The voter references things not said in debate, does not explain sources points, and dismisses Cons argument as ad hoc with no consideration of explanation made in debate. I request moderation, please." - SKEP1

Is this a reference to Ethang5 or me? It looks like his privileges have been revoked. I see a line through his name. I do not know how that affects the outcome of our debate. Does it mean one less judge or does it mean another debate in limbo?

The voter references things not said in debate, does not explain sources points, and dismisses Cons argument as ad hoc with no consideration of explanation made in debate. I request moderation, please.

Instead of abortion, I think a debate on personhood would have been more appropriate.

-->
@PGA2.0

Ummm, you actually brought up *NON- consensual* sex, but..whatever. Birth control is not a guarantee against pregnancy. So, its possible responsible steps can be taken to avoid pregnancy (demonstrating there is no consent to pregnancy) and pregnancy still occur. Yet you would act as though the woman alone has acted irresponsibly. This is nonsensical, unfair, and a revocation of 'irrevocable' rights. If you think there is such a thing as inalienable rights for all persons, then your position is contradictory.

-->
@SkepticalOne

"No, of course not. Pregnancy is a systemic burden on a human body. Nipple chewing...not so much. They are not comparable. I'm not sure why you've brought up non-consensual sex (assuming incest is non-consensual), because, as mentioned earlier, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. The only absurdity is in the misrepresentation of my argument." - SKEP1

I bring up consensual sex because most pregnancies are a result of it and most abortions are from consensual sex. When a woman engages in consensual sex she understands the risk is there to become pregnant. Thus, she has a responsibility to take precautions if she does not want to get pregnant. If she gets pregnant she has a responsibility to guard her offspring. What mother has a right to kill her newborn because she doesn't want the responsibility? What person has the right to kill an innocent human being outside the womb? But abortion advocates have given this right to kill an innocent human being inside the womb. This is a gross injustice. The treatment is biased and unequal. Both are human beings, both are innocent, but one is discriminated against while the other is protected at all costs.

What is the greater harm - to suffer some discomfort or burden for nine months then put up for adoption the offspring, or to kill an innocent human being and your offspring because you are bothered by some discomfort or feel burdened? Where is the justice here? The scales are unbalanced between the unborn and newborn; between one human being and another. Can a person kill you because you cause them discomfort or become a burden to them?

-->
@PGA2.0

"So if the newborn puts a strain on the woman's physiology by chewing too hard on her nipple for nine months, should she consider this a threat that deserves death? In most cases (.5-1% rape or incest) sex is engaged in by consent but the responsibilities that come along with it are shuffled off. The main reasons for killing the unborn are because the woman doesn't want the unborn."

No, of course not. Pregnancy is a systemic burden on a human body. Nipple chewing...not so much. They are not comparable. I'm not sure why you've brought up non-consensual sex (assuming incest is non-consensual), because, as mentioned earlier, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. The only absurdity is in the misrepresentation of my argument.

-->
@SkepticalOne

"Pregnancy in all cases puts a strain on the physiology of the woman and is without a doubt a threat to life. On this alone, a woman is justified in terminating a pregnancy.
The intention of the offending entity is unimportant. After all, someone can *unintentionally* kill another person, and they can still be charged with manslaughter. Additionally, if the *unintentional* actions of another being continually threaten your life, you are within your rights to make this threat cease including lethal force. These are real life examples which negate the 'innocence of the unborn' approach, and for this reason it is irrelevant." - SKEP1

So if the newborn puts a strain on the woman's physiology by chewing too hard on her nipple for nine months, should she consider this a threat that deserves death? Again, I point out the absurdity of the argument. In most cases (.5-1% rape or incest) sex is engaged in by consent but the responsibilities that come along with it are shuffled off. The main reasons for killing the unborn are because the woman doesn't want the unborn.

Many sites and people, including the past president of Planned Parenthood have stated that in the MAJORITY of pregnancies there is no life-threating danger to the woman's life.

The 'threat' defense is an EXCUSE to terminate a life. Show me otherwise.

I have argued that there is an exception with abortion, and that is when there is a legitimate life-threatening danger to the woman continuing the pregnancy. That is rare. If the threat to the woman was so common then with the majority of pregnancies the woman would be dead. That is not the case.

Manslaughter is unintentional but it is careless and negligent. It is still judged harshly by the law of the land. The woman having an abortion is promoted and there is no criminality to it in your (or my) country.

-->
@PGA2.0

Pregnancy in all cases puts a strain on the physiology of the woman and is without a doubt a threat to life. On this alone, a woman is justified in terminating a pregnancy.

The intention of the offending entity is unimportant. After all, someone can *unintentionally* kill another person, and they can still be charged with manslaughter. Additionally, if the *unintentional* actions of another being continually threaten your life, you are within your rights to make this threat cease including lethal force. These are real life examples which negate the 'innocence of the unborn' approach, and for this reason it is irrelevant.

The rest of your reply I consider to be rhetoric. It (and everything else here) has been sufficiently addressed within the debate itself, so I'll not beat a dead horse.

-->
@SkepticalOne

"My analogy was not just about intruders, but intruders that are a threat. Self- defense is justified in this case. Also, consensual sex is not consent to pregnancy and I think you would have real difficulty showing otherwise." - SKEPTICAL1

This imagery of an intruder in comparing a burglar or criminal breaking into one's home is not a good parallel to the unborn for the reasons I highlighted in the debate. The analogy sucks.

The unborn did not intentionally break into the woman's womb. It is there through no ability of its own. The unborn are innocent of crime whereas the burglar or criminal is not since the intention is not there. If someone found a helpless newborn left in their homes they would not be allowed to kill that person. It presents no threat of harm to the inhabitants.

The newborn nor the unborn is a threat to the woman's life in a vast majority of all cases (a tubal pregnancy is one such exception).

Lastly, the unborn is part of her very DNA and is her offspring, her child. What mother would be able to kill her newborn offspring or child? Yet you think we should allow the woman to kill the unborn which is almost entirely the same in its development minutes before birth as the newborn, except for its location. Both unborn and newborns are the same human being. Their nature does not change.

-->
@SkepticalOne

What happens with Planned Parenthood and other abortion groups is they scale down the language by using these sterile terms to disguise what is being discussed - a unique and individual human being. Once any human being is dehumanized and devalued they can be discriminated against even to the point of killing them. This discrimination resulted in the mass slaughter of countless millions of human beings. As mentioned various times in the debate, the killing of the unborn is the most significant genocide in the history of humanity to date.

-->
@SkepticalOne

"Pregnancy is ALWAYS A THREAT, and I am talking about a zygote/embryo/fetus, not babies/children." - SKEP1

The percentage of women dying from pregnancy is virtually non-existent in our day and age. This is crazy logic. If pregnancy is always a threat, then this kind of logic would suggest that no pregnant woman should be allowed to have a child - end of humanity.

The definition of a child can include the unborn.

"1a : an unborn or recently born person"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

The definition of a baby can include the unborn.
": an extremely young child"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/baby

The terms zygote, embryo, or fetus can be employed to lessen the killing of the unborn by making it seem that it is less than it is. Again these terms can be used to dehumanize it so that its humanity is lost in the medically sterile language. What should not be lost when using these terms is that it is as much a human being in its NATURE than any other human being. Its DNA is the same DNA that it carries throughout its life. You are you from conception onwards. You don't stop being you because of your level of development. When your mother shows you an ultrasound of your development in the womb she doesn't call you a blob but she calls you 'you.' When she discusses the ultrasound with the technician she and the technician refers to the what the image represents as the child or the baby or her baby.

-->
@ethang5

My analogy was not just about intruders, but intruders that are a threat. Self- defense is justified in this case. Also, consensual sex is not consent to pregnancy and I think you would have real difficulty showing otherwise.

-->
@SkepticalOne
@PGA2.0

As most people do not know when they are ovulating, pregnancy can occur without vaginal sex, and protection sometimes fail, heterosexual IS a threat under your belief system. How do you think so many people get pregnant when they didn't intend to?

What I fail to understand is how a natural process, willingly entered into by the woman, can be a "threat". Why would she willingly engage in sex if it is such a threat to her life?

And the question stands. In the real life case you analogized, we are not able to kill trespassers if removing them will kill them. In France for example, one may not remove trespassing squatters in the winter time. In some places in the US, the gas company cannot turn off your gas in the winter time.

My question is, since it was you bringing the analogy, why should the woman be able to kill the trespasser when in the real cases you referred to, she would not be legally able to.

-->
@ethang5

Since consensual sex itself is not generally harmful, I think to view sex as a default threat to an individual, one would need to assume pregnancy is a given of sex. This is not (by default) true as pregnancy is dependent on a particular type of sex (vaginal), whether ovulation is occurring, whether implantation of the embryo to the uterine wall has occurred (assuming conception), and of course that no birth control has been successfully used. Anyone of these circumstances not being met will eliminate pregnancy as a possibility of sex and, by extension, consensual sex as a inherent threat to the individual.

-->
@SkepticalOne
@PGA2.0

Sorry, I didn't mean to. OK then, you didn't answer my question. I just want to know how your idea of an embryo being a trespasser deals with its real life part of the analogy. If pregnancy is always a threat that justifies force, simple sex between a man and a woman is itself a threat. Under your belief, homosexual sex is not a threat, but heterosexual sex is. Thanks for the answer and sorry about the unintentional semantics issue.

Pregnancy is always a threat, and I am talking about a zygote/embryo/fetus, not babies/children. You should not be poisoning my well - especially as a judge in this debate.

-->
@SkepticalOne
@PGA2.0

Depending on how you define "threat", every pregnancy can be a threat. But are you saying that if a pregnancy poses no threat, the woman cannot legally kill the child? Or that pregnancy always poses a threat, so a woman is always justified in use of force? It seems to me that at worst, this is a potential threat. Any trespasser is also a potential threat, yet I cannot legally kill a trespasser just for being in an unauthorized place. Why is this allowed for women and babies?

-->
@ethang5

Actually, when the trespasser poses a threat (as pregnancy does to a woman) lethal force is justifiable.

-->
@SkepticalOne

Question:

If I catch a trespasser, I am not allowed to kill him in my attempts to get him out. How does this jive with your analogy of the baby being a trespasser? Does the woman's right to control her body means she can evict the baby even if that eviction means the death of the trespasser?

-->
@SkepticalOne

"If science could save the fetus at the expense of the mothers life would you argue for the life of the fetus or the mother?" - SKEPTICAL1

"My example stipulated science having the ability. Additionally, there was no mention of a terminal condition in the mother. Essentially, the mother or the fetus can live, but one must die. Which should live?
This is obviously not part of this debate, but just a question that popped into my mind when considering your earlier comments." - SKEPTICAL1

Okay, so you want me to react to a hypothetical of weighing the woman's life against the unborns? Science has a gun and must choose to kill one or the other? Or what? If the mother's life is not threatened then why can't science save both? I'm not grasping what you are getting at.

-->
@PGA2.0

"Science does not have the capability."

My example stipulated science having the ability. Additionally, there was no mention of a terminal condition in the mother. Essentially, the mother or the fetus can live, but one must die. Which should live?

This is obviously not part of this debate, but just a question that popped into my mind when considering your earlier comments.

-->
@SkepticalOne

First, if the mother is near the point of death and the operation will kill her the operation can possibly take place when she is dead, per the example I gave you.

Second, if the operation will not kill her and she will die anyway, then to operate will save one of them, just like in the case of tubal pregnancy the operation will save one of them. In that case, there is no other morally right option to save at least one of them, the one that will survive. The unborn is not developed enough for it to be saved at present in tubal pregnancies. Science does not have the capability.

Third, if the woman has a disease that she will die from and that disease will spread to the unborn, then does not the woman have a moral obligation to care for her offspring? Do you know of many women who would put themselves over their newborn or any born offspring, if she is deadly sick and she has a choice of saving her offspring from becoming likewise? The option for her is either both dying by disregarding her offspring's life (by being selfish) or preserving her offspring so that at least it will live?

Some women who had a chance for a cure for cancer but knew the unborn would die of radiation poisoning have opted to continue the pregnancy without chemotherapy at their own risk of dying. That is a selfless act of love. In such situations, the woman had the right to save herself since a cure was possible. In the case of no possible cure for the woman then the situation is different.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/woman-dies-of-cancer-after-refusing-treatment-to-save-unborn-child

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/emotional-goodbye-for-young-italian-mother-who-died-for-unborn-child

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/australian-doctor-dies-after-refusing-cancer-treatment-in-order-to-save-her

http://briggsview.blogspot.com/2017/01/perfect-love-pregnant-woman-chose-to.html

-->
@PGA2.0

Didn't tag you again...I forget this site doesn't notify debaters of comments to their debates.

--> @PGA2.0
"I said nothing about murdering the mother. "

When you say 'then mother is dying anyway, so the surgeon has a responsibility to save the unborn' in response to "If science could save the fetus at the expense of the mothers life would you argue for the life of the fetus or the mother?" It certainly seems you are endorsing killing a dying person earlier than nature would have it. Clarify your meaning.

-->
@SkepticalOne

I said nothing about murdering the mother. I said save the unborn. How is taking the removing the unborn from the dying mother going to kill her? She is going to die, but how will that operation kill her? In the one scenario that I gave you, the mother was brain dead but they kept her body alive long enough until the unborn had a reasonable chance of living.

-->
@PGA2.0

"IMO, if the mother has cancer and is going to die before the unborn is born, then science/the surgeon has a responsibility and should save the unborn for the mother will die anyway."

Keep in mind my thought experiment said nothing about cancer, but even still... that's brutal, man. We are far from agreement. You are advocating involuntary euthanasia.

"I realize I did not tag you in my last response, Peter. Apologies." - SKEPTICAL1

No problem. (^8

"If science could save the fetus at the expense of the mothers life would you argue for the life of the fetus or the mother?" - SKEPTICAL1

Can you give me a scenario?

IMO, if the mother has cancer and is going to die before the unborn is born, then science/the surgeon has a responsibility and should save the unborn for the mother will die anyway.

https://www.thelocal.it/20141031/doctors-battle-to-save-baby-from-dead-mums-womb

-->
@PGA2.0
@Alec

I realize I did not tag you in my last response, Peter. Apologies.

If science could save the fetus at the expense of the mothers life would you argue for the life of the fetus or the mother?

He said in his debate, "The Woman Should NOT have the Right to Choose, with one exception.". Maybe his exception is if the mother was going to die. What is his exception?

"There is nothing science can do at present to prevent their deaths. But there is something science can do you save the woman."

Thank you for a candid answer. Let me ask a question: if science could save the fetus but the woman was killed in the process, would your view be the same?