Abortion

Thank you for your response. I would like to start to by giving the current status of the debate. Pro is attempting to make an affirmative case for abortion or at least a “right” to abortion. Pro has agreed that a fetus (still refuses to specify how many weeks) is alive but makes a distinction between life and human life. Life begins at conception Again, pro does not seem to dispute this point but asserts that life and human life is different. Pro attacks me for stating it is the exact same thing as any human life and while I do not completely disagree with this point, I did no such thing last round. I simply asserted and proved what pro agreed to which is that the science dictates that life begins at conception. Pro on the other hand did not even outline the information. Rather, pro just dropped a link and this is not considered evidence. Not only that Pro equates the validity of a website with pro-choice in its name to Princeton. A human? Pro additionally brings up a series of questions from an ardent pro-choice advocate and calls it a “source” and has the audacity to say Princeton source uses “faulty logic” but is yet to refute any of the evidence. It is actually clear that Pro did not look at my source and even did not look at my round 1 arguments properly. I did not use the source to say it is a human. The purpose of the source is to prove what I literally put in bold and underlined I do not know how pro missed it and that is that life begins at conception. Pro recognizes the distinction when it is made by pro but not if I do hat with regards to my evidence. It is nonsense for Pro to present these questions because they are based on claims I haven’t even made and most them are not even valid questions for such a discussion. “if human life were to start before birth, then why is age counted from the start of birth, rather than from the start of pregnancy?” Pro you attack my evidence from Princeton but you believe that not counting age is sufficient evidence? That bares absolutely zero significance to how “human” the baby is. First of all age is definitely taken into account of the fetus for the mother’s pregnancy. I proved that in round 1 as well. If you were taking scientific aspects into account you perhaps would have referred to my second source when a fetus is “22 weeks old”, and not something as trivial as how we refer to people’s age. I could give cultural evidence as well to why a fetus is a human being. Can you answer me why it is that when people want the baby people kiss the mother’s stomach and people who don’t want the baby just call it something like a bundle of tissues? This is the logic of Pro’s own “source!” The opinion of the pro-choice person you refer agrees that people who want the baby believe that it is a human being and people who don’t believe it is not. She explains that the only opinion that matters is the mother’s and she should make that decision. Let me be extra clear: No human being should be able to decide what is or isn’t a human being based on their convenience. “If a fetus is a person then why aren’t adoptions finalized until after the baby is born?” I think this is a good question for a separate but have the same issue with the other question. Pro doesn’t give evidence to this but I am honestly no expert with adoptions. But very simply, the baby can be aborted! I am sure others still make the plans prior to birth. “If a fetus is a person, why is no one (I shouldn"t speak too soon) suggesting the death penalty for women who have abortions?” I can’t speak for other people pro. The punishment for it is a separate debate. We are debating simply whether it should be allowed or not. But I want to present you a question with similar logic: If a fetus is not a person, why do many women experience distress after doing an abortion? This distress can often translate into negative effects on a women’s mental health [1]. “If a fetus is a person does that mean a pregnant woman is two people? Can she drive in the carpool lane? Can she buy two items when a store advertises "one per customer" sales?” That was amusing. But my priority is saving the unborn baby’s life and then I will advocate for these very important issues. Women’s body Pro has yet to provide any evidence of this “right” to kill a human being. Pro may not believe that the unborn baby is a human being but Pro clearly makes the case that even if it is a human being a woman is allowed to kill the human being because it is a part of a woman’s body. This is egregious. You are never allowed to kill a human being. The government has every right and it is their obligation to stop people from murdering. This is clearly not an issue of a women’s body. And pro answer me this question: Based on your logic why can’t that right continue after the baby is born? The baby originated from the mother’s body why can’t the mother have the right to kill the baby in her own house? Doesn’t the baby belong to her? Viability Pro gives a beyond false comparison to a kidney transplant. There is a major difference between letting someone die and you actively deciding to kill someone for your convenience. I pretty much agree with the logic behind the kidney case but it is definitely not applicable. Respectfully, I think you are unaware of how abortions are done. It is not as simple as stopping the baby from using the mother’s body to live. During the first three months they plunge a tube with an edged tip into the womb then they use the suction power of the tube to tear apart the baby while it is alive they then suck the pieces of the baby out of the womb and this is called suction aspiration or Dilation [2]. And last part about your example, one does not actively choose to make their friend need a kidney as one most of the time chooses to engage in sexual activity. They are therefore responsible for their own decisions. Pro still did not define the terms of abortion. I proved that the baby can be viable as early as 22 weeks. This is still considered abortion not murder. Pro is yet to address it and seems to classify this as “up in the air”. It has also been proven that by 20 weeks for sure the baby is capable of feeling pain [3]. Overall the viability claim is nonsense. Once the baby is born the baby still needs the mother to survive! The baby cannot survive on its own. Why does it make a difference if it is outside the body? Pro why don’t we start counting age when someone is capable of living on their own? I will try to give a more valid comparison. Can we compare an unborn baby to somebody on life support? They both cannot survive on their own and some people believe that one should pull the plug if it is a lifelong coma and that is a separate debate. But I believe almost any just human being would agree to not pull the plug if they know that within just weeks the person will be fully functioning again. Would you suggest pro that someone on life support is not a human being because they are not viable? I await your response.