#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Is abortion a black or white issue?
No.
Side Score: 48
|
 |
Yes.
Side Score: 8
|
|
2
points
I agree with both luckin and pirateelfdog, I just think their arguments fit the No position a bit better - (largely because the debate itself is not specific enough.) It is not a black or white issue because it affects people of all races and It is not black or white (meaning having very clearly delineated choices) - as pirate mentions there are many factors to consider - even if we exclude morality and narrow it to just when abortions should be legal, people have different opinions on gestational age, precautions to be taken re fetal pain, waiting periods, etc., etc. Side: No.
|
1
point
1
point
1
point
It would depend on the situation if the situation is something like the fertilized egg is stuck in the fallopian tubes and if the egg isn't killed, then the mom will die. That kind of situation I can understand that decision being made. However, when the situation is not that extreme, there is no adequate reason to take another human life, no matter how horrible the circumstances Side: No.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
3
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Fair point. I forgot about the first statement. However, i still stand by my second statement. Self-defense doesn't apply here because self-defense implies that there is something you need to defend yourself from. In the issue of abortion, the issue is about whether or not baby should live, not about whether or not a mother has the right to defend herself Side: No.
1
point
1
point
I already mentioned some - hormonal/mental/emotional changes, social changes (how people interact with you during and after pregnancy), dietary changes (avoiding foods, alcohol, certain medications, etc.), financial changes (cost of healthier diet, vitamins, taking off work for ultrasounds, delivery, recovery, etc.), the (sometimes permanent) physical changes (weight, body shape, stretch marks, mobility), etc., etc., etc. along with the health risks of gestational diabetes, incontinence, deep-vein thrombosis, etc. etc. etc. and culminating in the aforementioned vaginal delivery or caesarian section (and scar). the risk of death is very real and certainly escalated when compared to either not being pregnant or getting an abortion. Side: No.
1
point
How is a normal part of anyones life, pregnant or not, harmful to the point of death? I'll let you in on a little secret - want to know the #1 cause of death: Life. Yes, as I have already said, pregnancy increases the odds of dying both compared to not being pregnant, and compared to getting an abortion. Side: No.
1
point
1
point
The woman herself is genetically distinct. If she has medical problems and the pregnancy could kill her, how can you justify protecting one genetically distinct "life" (I put in quotes because I do not consider it life until the 3rd trimester, though I am guessing that you consider it life earlier than that) at the expense of the other? Side: No.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Because in this situation one of the two parties will die. We are essentially deciding which of the two deserves to live. You are arguing that we should force the mother to go through with a process that will kill her so that the fetus can live. I'm arguing that she should have the right to self preservation, as she is a fully living, autonomous, conscious human being. Side: No.
1
point
I define "fully living" as having been born and fully capable of self awareness. The latter I may need to put more thought in as it pertains to mental illness. Autonomous I define as the state of being free and independent. Conscious I define as....well, conscious. Being awake and capable of awareness. Side: No.
This is what I think is the issue. There are people that are alive today that wouldn't be considered fully living, autonomous, or conscious or any combination of the three yet we as a society think its a moral right to abort a baby that is still growing in the mothers womb because they don't fit these criteria Side: No.
1
point
Those people that you mentioned are considered medically brain dead for the most part, and most of society is okay with us removing life support in those instances. I reject the notion that human life is worth so much in and of itself. To me, the reason human life is worth so much is because of its relation to the given individual. Because humans are capable of self awareness, their lives become worth more. If something is genetically human, but has zero awareness (self or otherwise), I see no reason to attribute so much value to it. This is why I have no problems with abortion before the 3rd trimester, which is when significant brainwaves first appear which signify the beginnings of basic consciousness. Side: No.
1
point
1
point
Access to the senses doesn't necessarily mean that you are aware of something. I know for myself that I've had times where I wasn't aware of what was going on around me and I have access to all five of my senses. Would you be willing to show the research that was done on the sense of self you were talking about? Side: No.
1
point
Access to the senses doesn't necessarily mean that you are aware of something. I know for myself that I've had times where I wasn't aware of what was going on around me and I have access to all five of my senses. You are mistake the words "awareness" at "conceptualize". By nature of your senses, you were aware of what was going around you, even if you could not understand and conceptualize it. That's a seriously semantic based argument. Would you be willing to show the research that was done on the sense of self you were talking about? http://www.cell.com/current-biology/ Here is the abstract. You can also go here if you want a more accessible link. Side: No.
What are your justifications for making the decision for the woman? Do you believe she wouldn't suffer knowing that she had an abortion? Do you believe she would easily discard her child? Do you believe the decision she makes isn't difficult enough for her without people condemning her for trying to save herself in the situation of her body being unable to successfully carry the child and live? Side: No.
I'm not making any decision for anyone. All I'm saying is that these situations don't justify killing a baby. That doesn't stop her from making the decision. I do think she would suffer depending on her thoughts on how human she thought the baby was. Assuming that she thought that while the baby wasn't human while the baby was still in her womb, she could easily discard her child. It sounds like you think the woman has no responsibility to the child when the child is in the womb. If thats not the case, let me know Side: No.
Of course she has responsibility, she also has the responsibility to decide what's best for her. Any decision she makes is something she'll have to live with for the rest of her life. It doesn't matter what your opinion is on when the actual life starts to exist, be it 3rd trimester, 2nd, or the moment of conception. She has the right to chose without other people who aren't in her predicament making decisions for her or judging her. Each woman will be different, each woman will believe different, but that's on THEM to chose. Side: No.
I hear what you're saying. I do agree with you that the woman has to make decisions about whats best for her. I also agree with you that people shouldn't be judging the woman for whatever decision she decides to make. I do have a caveat for he first agreement though. If the woman becomes pregnant, she then has a moral obligation to the child and because of that, is morally obligated to take care of the child's needs, even if it comes at the expense of her own. You're right when you say that she has to be the one to make the decision and not anyone else. However, if she has no intention if raising a child herself, she has other options she could take rather than just aborting the baby Side: No.
What is your position on what the man's side is of this? Is he legally obligated to pay her medical expenses if she's made to keep the child she doesn't want? What about expenses after delivery especially in Postpartum depression, healing, medications, bed rest, time off work and so on? Side: No.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Why would a woman need to defend herself from giving birth to a child regardless of how the child came out? Pardon the crude analogy, but most people have some understanding of what vaginal delivery or caesarian section entails. If someone were going to shove a softball up your anus, or slice your belly from side to side - would those be things you might want to avoid? Also, is the mother obligated to keep the baby once the baby is born? No. The impacts I am referring to are solely the impacts of the pregnancy itself. Side: No.
2
points
Bodily harm of any kid is unavoidable regardless of whether or not someone is pregnant. Also, its a given that if a woman is pregnant that they are going to have pain when they are giving birth. How does self-preservation fit in there? I could understand if the woman had the possibility of dying, but not with what is considered normal as part of the pregnancy Side: No.
1
point
Bodily harm of any kid is unavoidable regardless of whether or not someone is pregnant. We are talking about bodily harm from external sources, something you yourself have said we have a right to protect ourselves from. Also, its a given that if a woman is pregnant that they are going to have pain when they are giving birth. How does self-preservation fit in there? Quite well, as it is part of what I am talking about (on top of possible complications, morning sickness, etc). I could understand if the woman had the possibility of dying, but not with what is considered normal as part of the pregnancy But that's the point. The "normal" parts of pregnancy often do serious damage to women's bodies, but you are saying that even if the pregnancy was forced upon them, they should be forced to go through with it, to their detriment. Yet at the same time you believe these women should be able to defend themselves from external assault. It's inconsistent. Side: No.
We are talking about bodily harm from external sources, something you yourself have said we have a right to protect ourselves from. We do have a right to protect ourself from external sources. However, being pregnant isn't an external source of harm that the woman needs to protect herself from Quite well, as it is part of what I am talking about (on top of possible complications, morning sickness, etc). I could understand a woman not wanting to get pregnant because she doesn't want to deal with these things, but in the case where the woman was maybe raped, does the baby not have a right to self-preservation? But that's the point. The "normal" parts of pregnancy often do serious damage to women's bodies, but you are saying that even if the pregnancy was forced upon them, they should be forced to go through with it, to their detriment. I think you'll have to define what you mean by serious damage. The normal parts of pregnancies would just be considered inconveniences Yet at the same time you believe these women should be able to defend themselves from external assault. It's inconsistent. As I said earlier, we do have a right to defend ourselves from external harm. However, what is it about being pregnant that would make it an external source of harm? Side: No.
2
points
We do have a right to protect ourself from external sources. However, being pregnant isn't an external source of harm that the woman needs to protect herself from That's an incredibly arrogant thing to say, considering how many women who are going through the situation themselves say otherwise. I could understand a woman not wanting to get pregnant because she doesn't want to deal with these things, but in the case where the woman was maybe raped, does the baby not have a right to self-preservation? No, the fetus does not, as it doesn't even have a sense of self. I think you'll have to define what you mean by serious damage. The normal parts of pregnancies would just be considered inconveniences According to people who are unfamiliar with it, perhaps. From serious vaginal tearing, to long term bodily changes, to hormonal imbalances, to pregnancy related illnesses, etc. To call what pregnant women go through a "inconvenience" is one of the more arrogant things I've heard in quite a while. As I said earlier, we do have a right to defend ourselves from external harm. However, what is it about being pregnant that would make it an external source of harm? The fetus is an organism in a parasitic relationship to the host (the mother). Given enough time, that relationship can cause more and more harm (see above) to the mother. Considering you have already made it clear that you do not believe the fetus is a part of the mother, that would make the source of the harm external in nature. Side: No.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Bodily harm of any kid is unavoidable Except this harm IS avoidable. Also, its a given that if a woman is pregnant that they are going to have pain when they are giving birth. Exactly! - unless they don't give birth (abortion). I could understand if the woman had the possibility of dying As I already mentioned: Pregnancy does come with increased risk of death both when compared to not being pregnant and compared to getting an abortion. Side: No.
1
point
2
points
Because pregnancy in itself is not harmful. The things that happen while pregnant are par for the course. No one in their right mind would consider a pregnancy something you would need to defend yourself from. It sounds like the two of you have more of an emotional objection rather than an intellectual one Side: No.
1
point
Because pregnancy in itself is not harmful. We have already presented a number of aspects of pregnancy that are themselves harmful. That's an objective fact. The things that happen while pregnant are par for the course. Being par for the course does not change the harmful nature of it. Just because something is expected or normal does not mean it lacks harm. No one in their right mind would consider a pregnancy something you would need to defend yourself from. You are all over insulting women today =/ As has already been pointed out, a number of women have had abortions in order to protect themselves from the possible harm of pregnancy, be it in the case of complications (something you have said you would not make an exception for) or otherwise. It sounds like the two of you have more of an emotional objection rather than an intellectual one Emotionally, I am against abortion. Intellectually, I believe it should be legal, for the reasons being presented. Side: No.
We have already presented a number of aspects of pregnancy that are themselves harmful. That's an objective fact. The only thing that could legitimately be considered harmful to the woman is childbirth. And thats just talking about the level of pain that they go through Being par for the course does not change the harmful nature of it. Just because something is expected or normal does not mean it lacks harm. A normal consequence of being pregnant that doesn't have a harmful effect on the mother would be par for the course You are all over insulting women today =/ As has already been pointed out, a number of women have had abortions in order to protect themselves from the possible harm of pregnancy, be it in the case of complications (something you have said you would not make an exception for) or otherwise. Its not an insult. Its common sense Emotionally, I am against abortion. Intellectually, I believe it should be legal, for the reasons being presented. It all sounds emotional rather than intellectual Side: No.
2
points
1
point
The only thing that could legitimately be considered harmful to the woman is childbirth. And thats just talking about the level of pain that they go through I already demonstrated that claim of yours is false, by listing not only the definition of harm, but presenting multiple pre-childbirth issues that fulfill that definition. As for childbirth, saying that the only harm involved has to do with pain seems to imply that you are not aware about the frequency of vaginal tearing and internal bleeding. A normal consequence of being pregnant that doesn't have a harmful effect on the mother would be par for the course It has already been presented that, by definition, it is harmful. Its not an insult. Its common sense It is truly an insult when you say "No woman in her right mind would want to protect herself from a chance of death, internal bleeding, months of physical discomfort and often illness, vaginal tearing, etc". That isn't common sense at all. It all sounds emotional rather than intellectual I can go on to define the words "emotional" and "intellectual" if you need, but first, why don't you tell me which aspects of my arguments you believe are "emotional", especially considering you are the one discussing perceptions of "normalcy" and "common sense". Side: No.
I already demonstrated that claim of yours is false, by listing not only the definition of harm, but presenting multiple pre-childbirth issues that fulfill that definition. As for childbirth, saying that the only harm involved has to do with pain seems to imply that you are not aware about the frequency of vaginal tearing and internal bleeding. The problem with your pregnancy issues are either that they happen a lot more than you make them out to be or they are worse than you make them out to be. Even this internal bleeding and vaginal tearing. The bleeding happens far less than you think it does and the tearing is far less worse than you think it is It has already been presented that, by definition, it is harmful. Its only harmful if you make it out to be worse than it actually is It is truly an insult when you say "No woman in her right mind would want to protect herself from a chance of death, internal bleeding, months of physical discomfort and often illness, vaginal tearing, etc". Again, making things seem like they happen more often or worse than they actually are I can go on to define the words "emotional" and "intellectual" if you need, but first, why don't you tell me which aspects of my arguments you believe are "emotional", especially considering you are the one discussing perceptions of "normalcy" and "common sense". First I would like you to tell me how things like normalcy and common sense are appeals to emotion. Those aren't emotional. Second, your emotional response is in your defenses to how you think abortion should be treated. You seem almost indignant with people, particularly me, not thinking that pregnancy is harmful or a threat Side: No.
1
point
The bleeding happens far less than you think it does and the tearing is far less worse than you think it is If someone was going to anally rape you, would your right to self defense depend on exactly how much anal tearing and bleeding would occur? What harms/threats would you be protecting yourself from that would not exist with pregnancy? Side: No.
1
point
I seem indignant because when you are presented with the definitions of the words in question, you ignore them. This entire debate revolves around you ignoring definitions of the words "harm" and "threat". It's an utterly pointless argument in semantics that I'm thoroughly tired of. I'll just leave these here: Side: No.
1
point
par for the course Can you not defend yourself from harm during a robbery because harm during a robbery is "par for the course"? No one in their right mind would consider a pregnancy something you would need to defend yourself from. People don't generally phrase it this way, but that is exactly what they are doing. more of an emotional objection what emotion is involved in saying abortion is a type of self-defense? Aren't you the one repeating already addressed arguments and appealing to emotion (responsibility to the child, etc.)? Side: No.
Can you not defend yourself from harm during a robbery because harm during a robbery is "par for the course"? Robbery isn't analogous with pregnancy People don't generally phrase it this way, but that is exactly what they are doing. There is no threat against the mother for being pregnant. There may be consequences she doesn't particularly like, but that doesn't make it a threat what emotion is involved in saying abortion is a type of self-defense? sounds like indifference to anything you don't think to be true Aren't you the one repeating already addressed arguments and appealing to emotion (responsibility to the child, etc.)? Actually no, I'm not Side: No.
1
point
Robbery isn't analogous with pregnancy In order to make that claim, you need to point to a relevant factor that is different. There is no threat Of course there is (as you've already admitted). sounds like indifference You think it sounds both emotional and indifferent? no, I'm not RE:already addressed arguments: ------------- a) After being shown to be wrong on:"to prove self-defense there has to be some kind of intent on the side of the attacker." b) "Except the whole idea of self-defense is based on someone else's intent to harm, perceived or otherwise" ------------- a) After admitting that bringing a pregnancy to term causes harm ("The only thing that could legitimately be considered harmful to the woman is childbirth. ") b) "being pregnant in and of itself isn't a threat to the woman" ------------- RE:appealing to emotion (responsibility to the child, etc.): "they are then morally obligated to keep the baby, even if the mom has medical issues" "is the mother obligated to keep the baby" "So basically no moral accountability on the part of the mother?" "It sounds like you think the woman has no responsibility to the child" "So you think women have no responsibility to their child?" Side: No.
In order to make that claim, you need to point to a relevant factor that is different. Pregnancy nurses the growth of a baby to a certain point. Robbery is the intent to steal something from someone else either forcefully or with a threat of force Of course there is So you think cherry picking what I say to make it sound like I'm in the wrong helps you how? You think it sounds both emotional and indifferent? Indifference would be an emotional response a) After being shown to be wrong on:"to prove self-defense there has to be some kind of intent on the side of the attacker." b) "Except the whole idea of self-defense is based on someone else's intent to harm, perceived or otherwise" It seems like you have a misunderstanding of what intent to harm is. It doesn't matter whether or not someone misunderstood a gesture as harmful or someone actually intends harm, self-defense is still based on an intent to harm even if the intent to harm was just a friendly gesture that was misrepresented as a threat a) After admitting that bringing a pregnancy to term causes harm ("The only thing that could legitimately be considered harmful to the woman is childbirth. ") b) "being pregnant in and of itself isn't a threat to the woman" It seems like you still like taking things out of context. For the first statement, how about you read the statement right after it. appealing to emotion (responsibility to the child, etc.): "they are then morally obligated to keep the baby, even if the mom has medical issues" "is the mother obligated to keep the baby" "So basically no moral accountability on the part of the mother?" "It sounds like you think the woman has no responsibility to the child" "So you think women have no responsibility to their child?" How is being morally responsible to a child an appeal to emotion? Side: No.
1
point
Not a definition of what each is, but what differences between them are relevant to the self-defense argument. cherry picking what I say You said: "The only thing that could legitimately be considered harmful to the woman is childbirth. And thats just talking about the level of pain that they go through" And have given no justification for your distinction of harm from threat or why it would be applicable. Indifference would be an emotional response The same way giving you an absence of a million dollars is a monetary response... Silly. self-defense is still based on an intent to harm Again, no it isn't. Since I've already provided sources backing up my position, how about you try to find a legal source that supports your claim that intent is a required element of self-defense. how about you read the statement right after it. How does "And thats just talking about the level of pain that they go through" make it go from being a harm to not being a harm? morally responsible It is asking if they just feel like it is the right thing to do. Side: No.
Not a definition of what each is, but what differences between them are relevant to the self-defense argument. In a robbery, the robber is a legitimate threat that needs to be dealt with before they cause harm. Being pregnant with a child is not harmful to the mother nor is it threatening. There may be some inconveniences or natural biological processes that the mother goes through while pregnant, but it isn't harmful to the mother nor does it threaten to harm the mother You said: "The only thing that could legitimately be considered harmful to the woman is childbirth. And thats just talking about the level of pain that they go through" And have given no justification for your distinction of harm from threat or why it would be applicable. Harm is any physical injury that is deliberately inflicted. A threat is the intent to inflict harm. The pain of childbirth is neither deliberately inflicted nor is a woman threatened with it The same way giving you an absence of a million dollars is a monetary response... Silly. More analogies that have nothing to do with what was originally said Again, no it isn't. Since I've already provided sources backing up my position, how about you try to find a legal source that supports your claim that intent is a required element of self-defense. http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/ Heres a website self-defense cases How does "And thats just talking about the level of pain that they go through" make it go from being a harm to not being a harm? Referring to the level of pain someone is going through doesn't mean the pain is deliberately inflicted It is asking if they just feel like it is the right thing to do. A moral responsibility is something we are supposed to do regardless of how we think or feel about it Side: No.
2
points
Your reference completely disagrees with you. It reaffirms my claims by saying "self-defense must be based on a "reasonable" belief in a present danger." and "did not limit self-defense only to cases involving a danger to life." and nowhere says intent is a required element. presumably an attempted Gish Gallop - fairly sure you have no points left (even if you attempt more equivocation word games) and that I have defended my position for any objective reader. Side: No.
1
point
1
point
This is from several dictionary websites. Harm: physical or mental damage or injury; something that causes someone or something to be hurt, broken, made less valuable or successful, etc. http://www.merriam-webster.com/ injury, damage, or problems caused by something that you do http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/ physical or psychological damage or injury http://www.thefreedictionary.com/harm physical injury or mental damage; hurt. to do or cause harm to; injure; damage; hurt http://www.dictionary.com/browse/harm Threat: a statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do. an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage http://www.merriam-webster.com/ a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace http://www.dictionary.com/browse/threat A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/ An expression of an intention to inflict pain, harm, or punishment http://www.thefreedictionary.com/threat an occasion when someone says that they will cause you harm or problems, especially if you do not do what they tell you to do http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/ Side: No.
2
points
Harm: physical or mental damage or injury; something that causes someone or something to be hurt, broken, made less valuable or successful, etc. http://www.merriam-webster.com/ injury, damage, or problems caused by something that you do http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/ physical or psychological damage or injury http://www.thefreedictionary.com/harm physical injury or mental damage; hurt. to do or cause harm to; injure; damage; hurt http://www.dictionary.com/browse/harm And do you not notice that these differ from your definition? Harm is any physical injury that is deliberately inflicted. Your definition says "physical", theirs says physical or mental (or in one case "problems"). Your definition says "that is deliberately inflicted", theirs specifically do not - exactly what is at issue. Side: No.
Your definition says "physical", theirs says physical or mental (or in one case "problems"). Ya I didn't include one word. So bad Your definition says "that is deliberately inflicted", theirs specifically do not - exactly what is at issue. Even you know that not everything that happens is unintentional. Anything that causes harm is assumed to be deliberate unless otherwise specified. Whether or not they decided to include one word, what I said still stands Side: No.
1
point
Even you know that not everything that happens is unintentional. Even people who write dictionaries know this, too. Anything that causes harm is assumed to be deliberate unless otherwise specified. By extension, your argument would be that you only have the right to protect yourself from intentional harm. (Which, of course, I've already addressed.) Can you defend yourself from an insane person who legally does not have intent? what I said still stands Translation:Even though my definition is explicitly not what the dictionaries say in exactly the way that would make my argument fall apart, I'm going to keep using it that way anyway. A little cognitive dissonance perhaps? Side: No.
1
point
Anything that causes harm is assumed to be deliberate unless otherwise specified. Whether or not they decided to include one word, what I said still stands That's simply not true. In the context of a debate on self defense, the relevant definition for harm is the legal one, which does not require intent. On top of that, nowhere is it written that all harm is assumed to be intentional unless specified otherwise. That sounds like you simply projecting your associations with the word onto the definition. Side: No.
1
point
Do you think that the only way a person can be harmed is by a deliberate attack? In one way or another Harm/pain, etc. caused by delivering a baby. You honestly think that harm or pain in child birth is a cause for self-defense? Even knowing that the baby isn't attacking the mom? Side: No.
1
point
In one way or another Then you would be incorrect. People can be harmed by actions without any intent. I already gave some examples: bacteria, virus, a rabid dog, an insane person. You honestly think that harm or pain in child birth is a cause for self-defense? Yes. Do you have the self-defense right to protect yourself from the same amount of pain/harm? Side: No.
Then you would be incorrect. People can be harmed by actions without any intent. I already gave some examples: bacteria, virus, a rabid dog, an insane person. It is true that people can be harmed without intent. However, to prove self-defense there has to be some kind of intent on the side of the attacker. No where will you find that there was absolutely no intent. Yes. Do you have the self-defense right to protect yourself from the same amount of pain/harm? Your assuming that the baby is attacking the mom Side: No.
1
point
to prove self-defense there has to be some kind of intent on the side of the attacker. Incorrect - the general rule is whether a reasonable person would believe harm was imminent. http://criminal.findlaw.com/ Side: No.
1
point
Proportionality does not require suspending self-defense. If you can avoid harm by running away rather than killing, some laws require that. None require you to just take the harm because there is no proportional response available. If someone is going to stab you, can you only stab them, or can you shoot them if running away, etc. is not available? Side: No.
2
points
2
points
Okay, it seems like words need to be defined now. Threat: a person or thing likely to cause damage or danger. Harm: physically injure. Injure: suffer physical harm or damage to (a part of one's body). Now it has already been established that the process of pregnancy and giving birth can damage parts of women's bodies (both in the short and long term). That means that it causes harm. This means that we know that pregnancy can potentially threaten the woman in question. You are consistently taking a stance that simply does not hold up to linguistic critique. Additionally, the doctrine of proportional defense only holds when multiple options are present. If there is only one option present, then the proportional defense doctrine doesn't hold true. Side: No.
2
points
Did you even bother to read the definitions? Or do you just not know what happens to women when they are pregnant? Here's a list of common side effects of pregnancy: exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks) altered appetite and senses of taste and smell nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester) heartburn and indigestion constipation weight gain dizziness and light-headedness bloating, swelling, fluid retention hemmorhoids abdominal cramps yeast infections congested, bloody nose acne and mild skin disorders skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen) mild to severe backache and strain increased headaches difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping increased urination and incontinence bleeding gums pica breast pain and discharge swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy inability to take regular medications shortness of breath higher blood pressure hair loss or increased facial/body hair tendency to anemia curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases) extreme pain on delivery hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover). Here's a list of common permanent effects of pregnancy: stretch marks (worse in younger women) loose skin permanent weight gain or redistribution abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh) changes to breasts increased foot size varicose veins scarring from episiotomy or c-section other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty) increased proclivity for hemmorhoids loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis) higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates) Here's a list of occassional side effects of pregnancy: complications of episiotomy hyperemesis gravidarum temporary and permanent injury to back severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies) dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele) pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies) eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death) gestational diabetes placenta previa anemia (which can be life-threatening) thrombocytopenic purpura severe cramping embolism (blood clots) medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby) diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication) serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis) hormonal imbalance ectopic pregnancy (risk of death) broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone") hemorrhage and numerous other complications of delivery refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures) severe post-partum depression and psychosis research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease Here's a list of uncommon, series side effects of pregnancy: peripartum cardiomyopathy cardiopulmonary arrest magnesium toxicity severe hypoxemia/acidosis massive embolism increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer) malignant arrhythmia circulatory collapse placental abruption obstetric fistula Then after all that there is also the chance of death. So: By the definitions of the words "harm" and "threat", pregnancy is itself a threat to the woman. Side: No.
1
point
1
point
There's a problem though. This stuff either doesn't happen as often as you think it happens or you're just making this stuff out to be worse than it actually is. Some of the common side effects are either natural biological reactions that come about as a mechanism to prepare the woman's to help nurse the baby or its a side effect of that biological reaction. These "side effects" as you put it can be considered threats to the woman if you make it out to happen more often than it does or worse than it actually is Side: No.
2
points
Or, third option, you just don't hear about it that often. I've known quite a few women who have given birth, and none of them had a "flawless" pregnancy. And regardless of if they are natural or not, they can still be harmful. You seem to be forgetting that was the word being debated. The side effects can be considered threats on the basis of the words harm and threat. And whether or not they are common, you previously argued those women should not be given an exception. So it doesn't matter how common it is when we are already talking about one of the instances where it is happening. Side: No.
Or the reason we don't hear about it that often is because to doesn't happen that often. What do you mean by "quite a few"? Ya pregnancies may not necessarily be 100% flawless, but that doesn't mean that the so called "threats" are rampant during and after pregnancy. Except something thats harmful is an injury thats deliberately inflicted and a threat is an intention to inflict harm. So no, pregnancy in itself neither a threat nor is it harmful Side: No.
1
point
I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I just think that its morally wrong to get rid of one life so that one person can feel comfortable regardless of how they got pregnant. Rape is a horrendous act and I wouldn't wish it on anyone, male or female. However, that doesn't justify killing a baby just because the female happens to get pregnant because of it. Rape culture is making people thinking that just because someone is a guy that they are then just gonna go raping women or a guy is automatically guilty of rape simply because he's a male. It has nothing to do with whether or not a baby should be aborted or kept alive during pregnancy Side: No.
Women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. Rape victims especially. Anyone who would force a woman to give birth is sick. Pregnancy and childbirth would make me suicidal, and I don't want to bring a sick baby into this world. Should I be forced to give birth? I hope not. Side: No.
1
point
1
point
This is another reason that the self-defense argument is superior. You don't have to argue how it was conceived, worry about implementing laws that require reporting to police, etc., etc. Abortion is done to protect the woman from the harms of pregnancy - in the case of rape there is added mental trauma, but the other factors are basically the same. Side: No.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
One point of clarification - external is not an element here. You can defend yourself from things inside your body that might be considered separate organisms like bacteria, viruses, fungus, tape worms, etc. and from your own body itself as with frostbite, cancer, etc. Side: No.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
1
point
First of all: how do you offer a "yes" or "no" option to a question that asks "black OR white?" Bad grammar, bro-tein shake. Anyway....according to the CDC in Atlanta, the Blacks comnprise a full 37% of ALL abortions done in America, over the past five years. (from 2009-2014, actually.) And as we know, they comprise only 13% of the population. Thus, they are over-represented in a per capita basis by nearly 300%! Gee...go figure! Who'd thunk it, eh? LOL But really, since whites and browns also get abortions, in all fairness we have to call it a "human" issue and cannot relegate the issue of Abortion to simply one race. Although I believe there is little doubt that the drop in violent crime that began almost exactly 18 years after Roe v Wade was passed was by far the result of Blacks having their little Tyrones whacked before being birthed. Most sociologists and Criminologists agree with this. SS Side: Yes.
|
