Abortion

Let's get to it. I'll respond to his arguments in order (opening, cross-ex, and rebuttal). Contention 1All humans, including the embryo/fetus, have a right to life. The reason the embryos' right to life trumps a right to a woman's bodily autonomy is because in the vast majority of cases, she (and the father) are responsible for its being there. They are responsible for the creation of a naturally needy child, so they bear a responsibility for caring for it. Say you come a cross a button on a wall that says "baby-making machine" that offers a pleasurable experience, that has a 1/100 chance of creating a baby. Say you press the button and receive your pleasurable experience, but a baby pops out. You are not justified in just walking away and letting the child die. You must now take responsibility for that child. The Fourteenth Amendment only says one must be born in the United States to be a citizen. The Amendment says that the state shall deprive no person of life. We are not justified in killing illegal immigrants, neither are we justified in killing the unborn simply because they are not citizens. Additionally, before Roe v. Wade, the unborn were persons, legally protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. [1]The embryo/fetus has rights, despite not having interests at the moment. Someone who is asleep or in a coma does not have an interest in remaining alive, but one is assumed. Also, newborns do not have awareness, expectation, etc. , but we still believe it is immoral to kill them (with the exception of some pro-choice philosophers who support infanticide). That's why it's illegal to kill someone who is asleep or in a coma. Plus, if personality and rationality were traits that bestowed a right to life, then humans would not be inherently valuable, personality and rationality would be. This would mean it would be morally justifiable to kill someone if it were possible to bring about two people with these inherently valuable traits. Contention 2Once a woman becomes pregnant, she has already reproduced. Abortion is not about reproduction rights, but the right to end the life of an innocent human. A woman does not have absolute right to her own body. She cannot take illegal drugs, she must obey seatbelt laws, and she cannot strike someone without just cause. Contention 3Banning rape, murder, and theft doesn't stop all rapes, murders, and thefts from happening. But we should not legalize them anyway. Pregnancy is not inherently dangerous. A woman has less than a 1% chance of dying in childbirth or in pregnancy. [2] The reality is that even before Roe v. Wade, the vast number of pregnancies were still done by licensed medical professionals, not unsafe "home" abortions. Dr. Mary Calderone, medical director of Planned Parenthood, stated, "90% of illegal abortions are being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists, or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such. .. They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is. .. Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians. " [3] That was in 1960, thirteen years before Roe v. Wade was passed. In fact, the numbers of illegal abortion deaths was greatly inflated by the pro-choice side. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist and founder of NARAL, has written: "How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL, we generally emphasized the frame of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the morality of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the [anti-abortion] laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible. " [4]Cross-examinationPro says he only believes homemade abortions should be restricted, but goes on to say that he believes a woman's bodily autonomy does not justify abortion after viability. There is some conflict here, since he apparently believes late-term abortions should be restricted. There is further conflict, since if a woman has ultimate right to her bodily autonomy, then the fetus would not be safe after viability. The woman, under bodily autonomy arguments, has no obligation to keep the fetus alive until the point of birth. She can "unplug," as the euphemism goes, at any time she wants. Perhaps Pro can clarify a bit next round. According to scientific understanding, the unborn are living human organisms (human beings) from fertilization. The problem about viability is it's a moving target. Currently, viability is considered to be at about 24 weeks, but 50 years ago it was at 28 or 29 weeks. Are we to assume 24 week fetuses are human beings now but that same human would not have been 50 years ago? Viability is a moving target that changes with advancements in technology. Plus, according to Pro's criterion, people on life support are not human beings. It would be morally permissible to end their lives for any reason, even if they have a good chance of survival. I don't see any reason not to consider pre-viable embyros and fetuses human beings, especially since the viable fetus is the same entity as the pre-viable one. He has ignored my question about Thalidomide, but it is definitely relevant. If a woman has a right to her bodily autonomy, then there should be nothing wrong with taking Thalidomide which will cause birth defect, despite the fact that her child will be born without limbs. RebuttalUsing Joyce Arthur is a fallacious appeal to authority on Pro's part. First, just because there is no consensus does not mean that everyone is wrong or that no one is right. Second, there is scientific consensus on when human life begins. It is at fertilization (I gave a scientific case in round one, and also gave quotes by embryologists, the experts on human embryology, that human life begins at fertilization). It's simply false to say that no one knows. Also, if no one knows, the benefit of the doubt should go to life. If you don't know there whether there is anyone inside a condemned building, it would be utterly irresponsible to blow it up anyway. You would check to make sure there is no one alive in the building before blowing it up. Joyce Arthur simply appears ignorant of the scientific facts. Being dependent on only one person does not mean that someone is not a human being. That's simply bad reasoning. Plus, if you are the last one out of a pool but you hear a splash and, upon investigating, there is a toddler in the pool drowning, totally dependent on you for survival, are you justified in walking away and leaving the child to drown or are you responsible for saving the child? Pro's reasoning is bad. Having human DNA and showing signs of life makes you a living human organism. Pro has not offered any compelling reason for not considering the unborn human beings. As I illustrated, viability is not adequate. Being a living human organism from fertilization is sufficient for being a human being. To claim otherwise is semantic nonsense. I don't have room for my second contention, so I'll go ahead and drop it. But my case against abortion succeeds anyway, and I have shown why Pro's case for it fails. I look forward to our next round. [1] Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, 2007), p.22. [2] . http://health.usnews.com...[3] Mary Calderone, American Journal of Public Health, July 1960. [4] Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America, New York, Doubleday, 1979, p. 193