New Member Tournament: Abortion

Self- OwnershipMy opponent agrees that abortion in the risk of death is permitted due to self-defense. If we agree to this, then it only follows that we agree to let the woman chose to abort. This is because the risk of death is inherent in all pregnancies, and who decides when the risk is great enough to abort other than the mother? Remember that pregnancy complications become more severe the closer to full-term, so a doctors diagnosis might be too late. Though the percentage of child labor death rates are relatively small in America, there are still slightly under 600 deaths each year. Some statisticians say that the numbers are rising due to Obesity and the onslaught of Cesarian sections. Excessive bleeding/ hemoraging is one of the other leading causes of death. [1] Should an obese woman, who has a higher chance of dying, be expected to carry out her full term which could end in her own death, subsequently putting the baby at risk? Finally, hemoraging can happen to anyone, so the risk of dying is existent in any pregnancy. If aborting in self-defense is okay, then choosing to abort for self-defense is okay. My opponent also says that most unsafe abortions happen in developing countries. But if we apply our universal human right to self-ownership, we understand that all women should have the same rights. Accepting a women's right to abort puts all women at a safer chance of allowing that universal right, and allowing them the right to live. My opponent also asks if murders should be allowed because some people murder. This type of analogy would not apply to abortions, because murderers, in most cases, are performing these acts out of malice towards another human. They have intent to kill another human. Because we cannot be positive that the act of the mother was to hurt her child, or prevent her child from suffering, we cannot say that she was intending to kill something that has not yet been living. This is based off of values to living that a fetus has not yet developed, such as perceiving. Even if there were questions about a women's sanity and intent to harm, a psychiatric visit could be necessary to confirm this; many countries have this option available as a law. A woman should not be labelled a murderer for doing what was needed to keep herself from risk; or potentially keep her child out of danger or in a poor quality of life. Responsibility of the parent/ Value of lifeMy opponent's point here is that fetuses are growing towards a healthy existence. This is not always the case. Sometimes the fetus grows outside of the womb, putting the mother and baby at serious risk. Should the mother be denied the right to get this baby out of her? There are other risks that could potentially destroy the child's value of life; which the mother has the right to prevent. The point here is that the parent's have the responsibility to feed, protect and care for their child. If this is not accessible, it is in the parent's right to stop this from happening. This is where the value of life argument comes in. Life doesn't necessarily mean valuable life, and each person has their own beliefs about value. If a child is to grow hungry, or be grown into a life of danger, the woman can prevent this. If a woman is a drug addiction, would it be appropriate to say that a child should grow up in that lifestyle? Should the child have to suffer from being born with that dependency, and have serious health risks involved? A Fetus is a humanA fetus is something that will grow into a human. Stopping a fetus from growing into a devalued life will stop this from happening without the fetus being aware or experiencing the pain. No, it is not always possible to tell if a fetus will grow into a child that will die, but there are instances where the babies health risks are prevalent. It is morally wrong to kill a humanMy opponent again relates abortion to murder. Abortion is not always justified just as murder is not always justified. Here, the lines are blurred a bit more because what is justified to one is not to another. A person is not killing another, but preventing themselves and the baby from danger. Therefore it is always justified in a legal aspect and should be allowed. Murder is a more clear act of vengeance or hate; where an unjustified murderer goes to jail. A fetus is not the same thing as a parasitic twin, but sometimes the death of one living thing is justified to save the other. Is it justified to force a woman to keep her life at risk? ConclusionAbortion should not be equated to murder due to value of life and a parent's responsibility. Therefore, abortion should be made legal to protect those mothers who want to abort and consequentially keep them at a greater chance of survival. 1. . http://www.msnbc.msn.com...