Instigator / Con
7
1596
rating
42
debates
63.1%
won
Topic
#520
Abortion after 3 weeks
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Alec
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 5,100
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
4
1450
rating
10
debates
30.0%
won
Description
Rules of the debate:
1: I waive the 1st round and my opponent waives the last round. Violation is an automatic loss of conduct point.
2: The BoP is shared.
Round 1
Pro
#2
I support abortions after 3 weeks because it's completely unreasonable to expect that someone will always be able to detect their pregnancy and perform the operation within that time frame. An abortion is a significant act of autonomy for any women so creating laws that only hinder that procedure is a form restricting the rights of woman. 3 weeks is also an arbitrary amount of time so restricting it there accomplishes nothing but burden women.
Round 2
Con
#3
I support abortions after 3 weeks because it's completely unreasonable to expect that someone will always be able to detect their pregnancy and perform the operation within that time frame.
If they can't get an abortion within that time frame, then they shouldn't be allowed to get an abortion.
An abortion is a significant act of autonomy for any women
It's not a justified act of autonomy if it infringes on others without their consent. Laws exist to protect people from other people. You could say that marital rape empowers men but this type of empowerment is not justified since it negatively affects another party; the woman that is being raped.
Just as there are laws that don't allow the men to rape women because of the women, there also should be consistent laws that prohibit women from getting abortions where the fetus is a human being.
Now is a fetus a human being? Science says so. A fetus has all the necessary chromosomes to be alive and they meet all the necessary criteria for life.
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art18278.asp states the 10 necessary criteria to be alive. These requirements are:
1. Living Things are Composed of Cells: A fetus is composed of multiple cells.
2. Living Things Have Different Levels of Cellular Organization: A fetus has different levels of cellular organization.
3. Living Things Use Energy: A fetus uses energy from the female.
4. Living Things Are Homeostatic:
A fetus does this with the help from the female. You may say that this doesn't count because a fetus is, "dependent" on an outside source for homeostasis, however, it doesn't matter how homeostasis is obtained. Otherwise, all cold blooded animals would not be alive because they cannot maintain their temperature on their own body heat(https://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-cold-blooded-animal.htm).
5. Living Things Respond to Their Environment:
Animals tend to go away from things that would cause them to die. A fetus does the same thing to abortionists. It flees them because fetuses beyond 20 weeks can experience pain. My reason for pushing the prohibition date to 3 weeks, I'll get to at the end of this round.
6. Living Things Grow:
Fetuses grow.
7. Living Things Reproduce or Have DNA:
This is the one the left loves to point out. However, there are 2 types of reproduction. Sexual reproduction and asexual reproduction. A fetus's cells have asexually reproduced multiple times.
8. Living Things Move:
A fetus moves.
9. Living Things Adapt to Their Environment:
Fetuses as a group evolve. They also adapt to different changes in the uterus.
10. Living Things Die:
Fetuses die, whether as a post born human or as a fetus during abortion.
3 weeks is also an arbitrary amount of time
It's based off of when a fetus's cells specialize. A fetus's cells specialize at 5 weeks, but 3 weeks ensures a 2 week buffer that is bound to save the quickly developing fetuses. I was thinking that since some post born humans develop quickly, some fetuses develop quickly. No 2 post born humans are exactly alike and no 2 fetuses are exactly alike. I imagine when science has said that fetuses cells specialize at 5 weeks, I imagine that that was an average.
Sources:
Pro
#4
There are situations where a women is unaware of her
pregnancy until beyond the three week stage, this makes this level of the
pregnancy too early because some women won't be able to receive an abortion even
if they wanted to.
When a woman gets an abortion there can never be consent on the part of the fetus, the decision is made by the mother because they are the only one capable of deciding. An abortion is an act of autonomy because the fetus is completely reliant on the mother and no one else.
I understand your argument that the fetus is indeed alive, but that alone is not a reason to prohibit abortions. There are many situations where the effect of ending a life is not morally wrong, in this category some may saying killing an insect or a plant is wrong because you are ending a life, that alone is not a sufficient reason.
When a woman gets an abortion there can never be consent on the part of the fetus, the decision is made by the mother because they are the only one capable of deciding. An abortion is an act of autonomy because the fetus is completely reliant on the mother and no one else.
I understand your argument that the fetus is indeed alive, but that alone is not a reason to prohibit abortions. There are many situations where the effect of ending a life is not morally wrong, in this category some may saying killing an insect or a plant is wrong because you are ending a life, that alone is not a sufficient reason.
Round 3
Con
#5
There are situations where a women is unaware of her pregnancy until beyond the three week stage, this makes this level of the pregnancy too early because some women won't be able to receive an abortion even if they wanted to.
If that's the case, the US can ban abortions all together.
When a woman gets an abortion there can never be consent on the part of the fetus
Then don't commit the abortion. For example, If a guy was wanting to ask a girl for sex and the girl couldn't respond due to unconsciousness, would that mean that her consent is irrelevant? No. If you can't consent, it is assumed that you don't consent and therefore the action is not performed. This applies for the woman that would have had non consenting sex thrust upon her and for the fetus that would have had a non consenting abortion thrust upon him/her.
An abortion is an act of autonomy because the fetus is completely reliant on the mother and no one else.
A 1 month old is largely reliant on the mother for survival too. The 1 month old is a literal leech to the woman's body and the woman can see the newborn easily, making it potentially scary for the woman. Does this give the woman the right to let the baby die? Or is the baby her responsibility to either care for or to find someone else willing to care for the baby? If she doesn't like breast feeding the baby and can't get formula(as most women can't get an artificial womb), then she could set the kid up for adoption or rely on what I would call the 4 filter policy to relocate the baby to someone able and willing to take care of them.
There are many situations where the effect of ending a life is not morally wrong, in this category some may saying killing an insect or a plant is wrong because you are ending a life, that alone is not a sufficient reason.
Here my opponent compares a fetus to a plant/insect. The difference between a fetus and a plant/insect is chromosomes; it's in their DNA. They partially determine who is human and who is not. Otherwise, what would be the difference between killing a 5 year old human and a 5 year old cow? The difference between humans and other animals is chromosomes. A fetus has the chromosomes of a human. They therefore (assuming their cells are specialized) are human beings.
Here are some images of aborted babies:
If you think the images are graphic, disgusting, and evil, then don't support the abortions that caused the babies to be in that condition.
Pro
#6
It makes no sense to advocate for a 3 week abortion ban and
then decide you'r against abortions all together, which is it? If abortion is to
be legal you need to explain why 3 weeks is the cutoff.
Your comparison of a fetus to a 1 month old is false because a fetus is biologically more dependent on the mother specifically, the same cannot be said for the 1 month old. Yes, there are circumstances where a woman should be able to decide if their child's life continues, this includes situations such as ending life support. The process of adoption can be extremely distressing for both children and adults so that is not always an option;
https://adoptionnetwork.com/emotional-and-psychological-effects-of-adoption-on-birth-mother
My opponent then makes an incorrect assertion, while there may be differences in their DNA, insects such as flies are considerably more complex organisms in comparison to stem cells or aborted fetuses, your argument is lacking moral consistency and you have yet to explain this arbitrary 3 week cutoff.
Your comparison of a fetus to a 1 month old is false because a fetus is biologically more dependent on the mother specifically, the same cannot be said for the 1 month old. Yes, there are circumstances where a woman should be able to decide if their child's life continues, this includes situations such as ending life support. The process of adoption can be extremely distressing for both children and adults so that is not always an option;
https://adoptionnetwork.com/emotional-and-psychological-effects-of-adoption-on-birth-mother
My opponent then makes an incorrect assertion, while there may be differences in their DNA, insects such as flies are considerably more complex organisms in comparison to stem cells or aborted fetuses, your argument is lacking moral consistency and you have yet to explain this arbitrary 3 week cutoff.
Round 4
Con
#7
It makes no sense to advocate for a 3 week abortion ban and then decide you'r against abortions all together, which is it?
I advocated for a 3 week abortion ban. I didn't know if abortions were possible earlier. If they are, then they can be legalized before 3 weeks. However, if they are not possible before 3 weeks, then they should be banned all together.
3 weeks is around the time when the fetal cells specialize, so they no longer resemble cancer cells. I would consider this at least somewhat of a compromise between the pro life position and the pro choice one, the one that wants to legalize abortion all the way up until 20 weeks.
Your comparison of a fetus to a 1 month old is false because a fetus is biologically more dependent on the mother specifically
They're both still dependent on the female for survival. It's just that the fetus is more dependent on the women for survival then the post born human. At the same time, a toddler is more dependent on the mother for survival then a 21 year old is. Despite this, the toddler is just as intrinsically valuable as the 21 year old(despite the former being much more dependent on the female then the ladder).
What does this tell us? It tells us that dependency is irrelevant to the intrinsic value of someone. It doesn't mean that a toddler is inferior to the adult, despite the toddler being much less independent. This logic also applies to a fetus vs a post born baby.
Yes, there are circumstances where a woman should be able to decide if their child's life continues, this includes situations such as ending life support.
Life support is only unplugged when it is uncertain if the person is alive, and even then it takes a while for the person to have the plug pulled. If the doctors knew that you wouldn't need life support in 9 months but you need it now, the doctors would keep you on the life support for the full 9 months with insurance paying for it.
The process of adoption can be extremely distressing for both children and adults so that is not always an option;
This is perhaps your best argument. The process can be a stress source for many people, the site that you posted states,
Birth parents may experience guilt and shame for having placed their child for adoption
So you mean to say that the parents would feel shame for setting up a kid for adoption, but they wouldn't have shame with killing the fetus version of the child? It seems that destroying an innocent human's life is worse then just making that life worse. However, these emotions don't exist forever in a prominent state. I know a few foster kids and they don't let the fact that they were adopted ruin their life.
In the short term, there's turmoil, but in the long term, most kids get adopted to other families who are better able to take care of them.
According to http://www.adopt.org/adoption-statistics, it states that over 94% of kids who get set up for adoption get adopted within 4 years. Not only that, but since adoption costs a lot of money, this may sound like a negative but in reality, it means that only rich people are adopting. In other words, the foster kids go to wealthier consenting families.
In conclusion, over 94% of kids who get set up for adoption get adopted and they get adopted to relatively well off families who want to adopt.
Any that don't get adopted in that one fiscal year carry over to the next year.
My opponent then makes an incorrect assertion, while there may be differences in their DNA, insects such as flies are considerably more complex organisms in comparison to stem cells or aborted fetuses.
Just because an animal has more chromosomes does not make them superior. This is true. However, if you have a different number of chromosomes, or if your chromosomes are different enough, then your with few exceptions, your a different species, with a different amount of rights. Since a fly has a different number of chromosomes by a significant amount, they are not human. If they had the same chromosomes but were a bird or something like that, then the chromosomes themselves are too different to be a human.
and you have yet to explain this arbitrary 3 week cutoff.
I did above. It's not super arbitrary and it is based off of the cell specialization.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro made a number of points here. He raised a number of reasons why abortion could be considered wrong, and a provided a justification for why the 3 week limit is warranted.
Specifically, that it harms the fetus; and that cells are specialized.
In general, while I felt con made an incredibly weak argument.
However pro massively harmed his arguments with limited and short rounds.
Pro had the outline of a good argument, that women don’t have enough time, and the beginnings of a moral underpinning - by arguing that a fetus at 3 weeks is more like an animal of plant in complexity. But with the lack of any substantial details to these points, I would be handing too much to pro to award him the points.
I defeated Our Boat is Right in a debate so I would know how to judge a debate better than him.
Our Boat is Right was pretty good at debating on DDO. I don't know what happened to him that caused his rating to be so low.
I don't think your rating classifies you as a "top debater" so what would you know?
alec just shredded u
I'll accept defeat, I'm not going to lose 3 times to a kid, my score is too low
Okay.
maybe later
Do you want a rematch?
I know! wtf
If it wasn't for that vote, we would have tied.
This debate result is BS, makes no sense at all, my opponent shouldn't have won just because my answers are more concise!