Resolved: Social abortions ought not be legal in the US.

Pro offers a new twist to the traditional abortion issue. I look forward to the debate. I accept Pro's definition of "justice" as "giving each their due." The question then arises as to what is due to a fertilized egg versus what is due to the woman and to others potentially impacted by legislation making abortion illegal. 1. Pro has states that human rights are not at issue in his advocacy. Pro illustrates by claiming that there is a right against "dehumanization" that exists independent of human rights. Pro cites slavery as unjust because it "violates a human without due cause." All violations of human rights involve some "violation" of a human without due cause. I challenge Pro to give an example of a human right which can be justly violated. There are none. Protection again slavery is a human right precisely because not doing so is unjust. Pro's error in claiming that the issue is not about human has no significant impact on the arguments. If there is an independent "right against dehumanization" which is separate from human rights, we must still resolve the conflict between this alleged new right, or whatever it is, and the rights of the woman and of others in society. If what Pro has discovered trumps human rights, Pro must make the case why that is so. Pro has not offered that argument. 2. A fertilized egg is not a human being, therefore it is properly "dehumanized." Pro seeks to have all abortion made illegal, including "morning after" situations in which the fertilized egg is a microscopic undifferentiated sphere of a few hundred cells. The sphere is "human" because it is made of human DNA, but it is not a "being" because it has no memories or any of other attributes that make up a "being." Unfertilized eggs, sperm, and a surgically removed appendix are all "human" because they are all the products of human DNA and of nothing else. However, none of those are "human beings" because none posses the other attributes of human beings. Something which is not a "human being" is quite properly treated accordingly. 3. Pro implicitly acknowledges that fertilized eggs are not human beings by providing the exception for rape in his assertion. Neither Pro nor anyone else would allow a child to be killed at age three on the grounds of the child being the product of a rape. Why not? Because the three-year-old is clearly protected by all human rights. At some point the fertilized egg that was allowably aborted becomes a human being that is granted human rights. For this debate, exactly when that occurs is moot. It suffices that fertilized eggs are not human beings, and therefore neither protected by human rights nor can they be "dehumanized" because they are not human beings. 4. More than half of fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted naturally. No one has the slightest concern that human beings are beings are thereby destroyed. There are no movements to develop heroic technologies to save them, nor to afford the burial traditions of religions. That is because there is implicit recognition that fertilized eggs are not human beings, and therefore "giving each their due" does not give a fertilized egg what is due to a human being. 5. The woman has a right to determine what to do with her body. Even if it were accepted that it is unjust to destroy a fertilized egg, which I do not grant, it is greater injustice to violate the rights of the woman to govern her own body. A fertilized egg is both within the woman and cannot survive independently of the woman, therefore it part of the woman. When Pro grants the exception to allow abortion over concern for the health of the woman, Pro grants that the woman has a greater right to live than the unborn. thus if rights are in conflict, the rights of the woman supersede. 6. Pro contends that making social abortion illegal will be more just than having it illegal. We know what actually happens when abortion is made illegal. Up until the 1950's abortion was illegal in most of the US. There were very large numbers of illegal abortions as a consequence, performed by quacks under unsanitary conditions. the result was the unnecessary injury and death of many women. Passing laws is not a theoretical exercise, it is a practical matter. It is far less just to adopt a policy that will result in the unnecessary injury and death of many women. The risks of legal abortion are lower than the risks of childbirth. Illegal abortion is extremely dangerous. A just society should not accept the practical consequences of the Resolution. 7. It is unjust to burden women with children they cannot properly care for. From the viewpoint of society, this is a substantially greater injustice than terminating a fertilized egg. Young teens, drug addicts, AIDS victims, and women suffering mental illness cannot properly care for children, therefore the burden largely passes to taxpayers. This is a substantial injustice because taxpayers clearly are not getting their due. Taxpayers were not responsible for the burden placed upon them. 8. If Pro is correct that the alleged "dehumanization" from abortion has harmful effects upon society, then Pro should be able to site those harmful effects. Pro must not just claim that there are things wrong with society, for surely there are. Pro should demonstrate that certain ills were a consequence of legalizing abortion. One expected consequence of might be increased implementation of the death penalty. However, that has not happened. Quite the opposite has happened. Is there evidence of a mobster saying, "Sure, I shot Vinnie. Abortion was legalized, so why not?" One can allege any sort of cause and effect relationship, but is there any real evidence of a causal link between abortion and adverse consequences? I know of none. I challenge Pro to provide solid proof. A just society should honor the rights of woman above any supposed injustice to fertilized eggs.