CreateDebate


Debate Info

15
5
Yes in certain conditions No abortion at all.
Debate Score:20
Arguments:15
Total Votes:21
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes in certain conditions (10)
 
 No abortion at all. (5)

Debate Creator

JoshGregory(12) pic



Abortion acceptable in certain conditions?

First off I'd like to say that I am very pro-life. I do wish to see abortion illegal in this country, but I can't help but notice that it seems that abortion should be legal in some cases.

BTW this is not a debate on whether abortion is alright for cases of rape or incest. This is for medical based conditions in which the child would either suffer tremendosly for a few years it has or is to die soon after birth.

For the sake of the argument, let's concentrate on Anencephaly. This is a condition in which a child is born without a brain. Occassionally one could be born with a brainstem but it would only be able to control basic fuctions such as cardio, muscular, etc. There is no consiousness to the child since there is no brain. The child will usually die very shortly after birth.

To me a child born with this condition is still considered life, but is not alive. There is no conciousness or potential for any. The only way to live is by being cared for 24/7 at the cost of tens upon thousands of dollars in a futile effort.

In the event of abortion becoming completely illegal in the US, do you think cases such as this should be acceptable?

 

Yes in certain conditions

Side Score: 15
VS.

No abortion at all.

Side Score: 5

I am quite sick of abortion debates, so I'll write my three strongest arguments for abortion and let's see if any of you "pro-life" people can rebut them. While many people have formulated different arguments for abortion (some better than others), not all of them are grounded in the concept of sentience. Unlike them, all of my three arguments do, at least, relate to the concept of sentience.

1. The Sentience Argument

1. Only a being that is conscious and capable of experiencing pleasure and pain can be said to have interests.

2. A sentient, and therefore morally significant, being is one with an interest in continued life.

3. Ergo, only a sentient being can be said to perhaps have a right to life. (From (2) )

4. Normal human foetus begins to possess a rudimentary capacity for sentience in the second trimester.

5. Ergo, an early term foetus is NOT a being with an interest in its own continued life. (From (3) and (4) ) (Or, Only a human foetus from the second trimester on can perhaps be said to have a right to life)

6. Ergo, an early term human foetus (i.e. foetus in the first trimester) does not have a right to life (from (5) )

7. Ergo, an early term abortion is morally permissible (from (6) ).

2. The Utilitarian Argument

1. Different sentient beings experience differing degrees or intensities of experiences such as suffering.

2. The prospect of death and dying is a more intense experience for a sentient being that possesses capabilities such as foreknowledge, fear, anticipation, and fuller recognition of dangers and of their own interests.

3. Ergo, the principle of respect for the interests of sentient beings does not imply that all sentient beings have an equal right to life. (from (1) and (2) )

4. A foetus, sentient or otherwise, does not possess foreknowledge, fear, anticipation, and fuller recognition of dangers and of their own interests.

5. Ergo, a sentient foetus may be accorded lesser moral significance than the sentient adult human being in whose body it gestates. (from (3) and (4) )

6. Ergo, the suffering experienced by a sentient late term foetus terminated through abortion, would be less than the suffering experienced by the pregnant woman, a sentient being, were she forced to continue with the pregnancy. (from (1), (2) and (4) )

7. Ergo, a sentient pregnant woman has a greater right to life than a (sentient) foetus. (from (3) and (6) )

8. Ergo, a late term abortion is morally permissible (from (7) )

3. The Personhood Argument

1. Personhood is defined in terms of the possession of characteristics and capacities such as consciousness, ability to reason, self-motivated activity, communication, and possession of a concept of the self.

2. It is more seriously morally impermissible to kill a person than a non-person, even a sentient non-person.

3. An early-stage foetus possesses little, if anything, in the way of consciousness, self-conceptualisation, reasoning and communication abilities.

4. Ergo, focuses are not persons (from (1) and (3) )

5. Ergo, foetuses cannot possess interests or rights, including the right to life (from (4) )

6. Ergo, it is not morally impermissible to kill them (from (5) ).

You might have noticed that in all three of my arguments, my conclusions are not necessarily the same. I am not advocating for a convergence in conclusion when I posit these arguments. I am merely stating three (quite) good arguments for abortion.

Side: Yes in certain conditions
2 points

If the mother's life is in danger or the mother was raped when the child was consieved.

Those are the certain points I think were abortion should be an option.

Side: Yes in certain conditions
JoshGregory(12) Disputed
1 point

Ok this is exactly what I said this argument WASN'T about.

Side: No abortion at all.
1 point

Sorry - I actually didn't read the debate, only the headline :p

but whatever!

Side: No abortion at all.
1 point

I actually believe that abortion should be allowed to be performed in at least the first trimester. I hate this issue though, because I'm fairly wishy-washy on it, considering this is more of a battle of morals and logic than anything.

If a child is going to grow up miserable, or die several days after, might as well just kill it before it has a chance to live in that short agony. And rape babies, nobody is going to want to keep. Incest is... gross, but I'm guessing if it's consensual, then whatever. They probably won't want to get rid of it.

Side: Yes in certain conditions

What about an ectopic pregnancy? It happens when an egg is fertilised whilst still in a fallopian tube, and if left unaborted, will rupture the woman's internal organs, and kill the mother and the child. Surely, even if you take the (rather outdated) stance that abortion is equivalent to killing a baby, it is better to abort the foetus and save the mother than allow both baby and parent to die.

Side: Yes in certain conditions
1 point

I agree. My mother had a situation like this and nearly died from the miscarriage.

Side: Yes in certain conditions
1 point

With so many excruciatingly painful situations throughout the world that need our immediate attentions, abortion is so far down the list as not to be anything for me to consider. One exception: I would favor legislating against abortion after the 4th or 5th month of pregnancy. However, even in such cases, under certain circumstances and in timely fashion, such a law would be made circumventable.

I would suggest that we spend more time, effort, and resources looking after those humans we already have on board. Get behind the abolishment of war--or in more understandable terms--WHOLESALE SLAUGHTER!!

The abortion issue is for the most part a religious issue and I subscribe to no man's dogma much less its abject hypocrisy.

Side: Yes in certain conditions
1 point

I'd also like to add..................

If as you declare your question to be specific to medical conditions, may I NSH suggest that you leave the matter to the physicians and the mother. I find it downright presumptuous of you and others to get involved. Surely your life consists of matters over which you legitimately do have control. This is NOT one of them.

Side: Yes in certain conditions
1 point

Its okay in certain conditions... But i believe if you have unprotected sex and you get pregnant then you should keep the baby. But if you got raped.. then i say you should have the choice...

Side: Yes in certain conditions
1 point

abortion even under specific curcommstances is a bad thing imagine if u were aborted??

Side: No abortion at all.
NeverUTOG(49) Disputed
1 point

Oh, had I been aborted, I couldn't have imagined anything. But then your intellect should have provided you with your own answer.

Abortion is over very quickly indeed, and completely painless in the first trimester and a month and a bit after. The nervous system has not yet been totally formed; thus, according to medical literature, the zygote feels nothing.

Had I been aborted, I would have been spared the agony of dealing with hypocrites--the most prevalent and destructive types the human race has ever known.

I think the best piece of advice I could offer anyone is that they live the best possible life doing the least amount of harm. Although, having said that, if you really mean well to others, climb aboard the band wagon that's headed towards the non wholesale slaughter of human beings. Can you say, "WAR"?

Side: Yes in certain conditions
1 point

I am totally against abortion because it is similar to killing. You'd better not have sex or at least used contraceptives ,if you are not planning to have a child at all. It doesn't matter in which period of time it's better to do abortion -3rd or 5th month ,anyways you are killing your own flesh and blood. Moreover,who says the child doesn't feel the pain? In fact,he feels really strong agony. Consequently,getting rid of the unborn child doesn't release you from huge moral standard's responsibility. Girls,please,be smarter,you don't want to have serious health problems in the future as well.

http://www.humanevents.com/2006/01/30/abortion-causes-massive-mental-health-problems-for-women/

Side: No abortion at all.
Cuaroc(8826) Disputed
1 point

Didn't take you as a point whore.

Side: Yes in certain conditions