Abortion

I thank you for your swift reply I am happy to coincide with the rules you set just wish there were a couple more rounds to flesh out this debate with a little more substance. Your misquotes was exactly that you found an outdated doctrine (two in fact) and tried to pass them off as common medical knowledge all I did was find the up to date one and point that misconception you made out, and as I will outline it is not clear to everyone when human life begins as that is a topic of much debate in itself. You have also used this "Abortion facts.com" site again to justify your argument and like your other sources, they assert facts without haveing any empirical evidence to back them up and make wild claims to support their agenda. Looking at another "Fact" Abortion has become a form of gendercide, shrinking the global female population at an alarming rate. yet globally the number of females has not dropped and their life expectancy is at an all-time high compared to male (9) or another fact "Laws concerning abortion have significantly influenced whether women choose to have abortions." But if you read over my sources (2,3) you will see that's clearly not the case. Unfortunately, I should move onto the topics of this debate ,although there are many more flaws I can point out in your source material I have a case to make. On the topics of this debate, we are providing the medical necessity far too much of it in this one so I shall make a quick reply and move on because this will only ever affect the smallest percentile of cases and the larger populous is whom we must consider. Taking from your own source (as little as I trust it) so that you can se the truth from a place you obviously trust Abortionfacts.com (7) - "It is an extremely rare case when abortion is required to save the mother"s life. Of course, when two lives are threatened and only one can be saved, doctors must always save that life. However, abortion for the mother"s life and abortion for the mother"s health are usually not the same issues. Since every abortion kills an innocent human being, it is morally abhorrent to use the rare cases when abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother as justification for the millions of on demand "convenience" abortions." so yes it is sometimes necassary but we need to talk about more aplicable cases and the morality of abortion to show why it should be widely accepted. Voters if you like me don't trust that source my opponent gave please see (8) an academic paper that goes through economic and medical aspects of abortion and I found quite interesting. Now even if the abortion wasn't medically necessary it would still be morally acceptable. My opponent has consistently been using emotionally charged and aggravating words like murder and killing suggesting that I am an uncaring inhuman person that condones the murder of others, to which I say that has no place in a civil debate and I wish her and all of you to take into account the quality VS the quantity of life. If someone wishes to have an abortion they don't wish to have a child this can be for many reasons Psychological trauma that would be experienced if carrying a pregnancy to term, pregnancy caused by rape, predisposed disposition to birth defects a disease, and many other personal or family reasons, all in all when a person wants an abortion they generally won't be able to support, nor ready, or won't love their child as much as they would if they wish to carry the child to term. so generally we could consider their quality of life for both the mother and the child to be diminished. what is the alternative let her abort this child especially in cases of teen pregnancy or rape then later in life if they choose to have a child it will be because they chose not because contraception failed or someone decided to abuse their bodies let them decide when they are ready to become a parent because that is a big step that not everyone is ready to take at 15 at 20 at 30 because these are people, and I will give them the courtesy you haven't given me, I will treat them as fully rational and capable human beings. Leaving the status quo as is will increase the quality of life and the quantity of life will remain the same, following my opponents self-righteous high horse will only lead to a drop in quality of life increase in illegal and unsafe abortion and more inhuman and unloving treatment of people. Speaking of people you have taken the stance I expected that hard and fast life begins at conception. Now this comes with a whole host of problems as it not clearly human as you have asserted with your only evidence being that it has human DNA and it is living. Now Does this mean that human skin cells that we shave off daily should be considered murder because they are alive with human DNA, course not? Does that mean a Parasite in your body feeding off your life force using your cells and DNA to further itself should be given the same human rights as me or you, No. From Contraception this 'baby'( a term you are mis-using as this only refers to a human being after birth) , So from contraception this Fetus is living off the mother and without her contact 24/7 would naturally die/be aborted so considering the loss of that life as any more than the loss of an animal or microbe is fallacious. Now your argument you said you were looking at the morality of abortion but instead you just questioned the morality of the people you oppressing. talking about their practical reasons I will look on the true morality of this act and even give you an example. starting with the example imagine you find yourself after going to bed waking up in a hospital hooked up to Katy Perry who is using your kidneys to keep herself alive. Katy's manager found out she had a fatal kidney failure and looked around found you drugged you and hooked you up to her to save her life. Now when you wake up the doctors tell you that "we are so sorry for what this manager has done to you and if we had known we would never have condoned it. still, it happened and your hooked up to Katy now and we cant unhook you without killing her but it's only for nine months and you only feel a little worse supporting 2 circulatory systems through your kidneys for those nine months because after then she will be fully healed and able to continue her life as normal." now I'm sure it would be a great kindness to stay hooked up to Katy for that time and she would much appreciate it but are you obliged to? No, and what if instead, the doctor said 18 years you had to stay hooked up because remember all people have a right to life and Katy coma'd out with little to no brain function at the moment is a person too. Granted you do have a right to choose what happens to your body but the right to life is greater so we don't care about your right to decide what happens to your body because we are forcing you to stayed hooked up to her. I'm sure everyone can see how outrageous the doctor sounds in this example. In this case, my opponent is the doctors Katy Perry is the fetus and you are the person who understandably would want an abortion and Katy's Manager is your rapist. so an argument that sounded plausible in my opponents theory soon falls apart when placed in a real life example. One of philosophical nature in order to get you thinking I would like to round out with some other comments I wish to pick up on "motherly instincts that should be present in the mother too" not always many people don't consider themselves mothers or fathers anywhere near ready so you pushing them into such a position telling them how they should think feel and act are overbearing and not respecting them as human beings with their own complex emotions and feelings. "We look down on murder of older humans" Quite the contrary we Euthanize the elderly at their consent or the concent of the family member they have allowed their wishes to be overseen. "I would question their humanity...why were they pregnant in the first place?" you are assuming things about these people you have no right to assume most people who wish to have an abortion are those who are victims of rape or whom have been using contraception and it failed. this is not their fault and dehumanizing them is abhorred because these are people not murderers but people. "who are born already, growing up in poverty?" but not all parents wish that upon their child and these people have hope that they will be in a better place in the future in which they can support a family of the best of their abilities and you denying them that hope is the only crime i can see here. "Who are you to presume that a rape victim even wants an abortion" i am the one not denying them the option of having it. I am assuming them capable human beings able to make their own decisions unlike you who wish to take all their free will away so they will follow your ideological values that they may or may not align with. "How far have we come since then?" this was asked when looking back at abortions when they were illegal. now since then we have developed safer practices more humane practices like that of the medicinal abortion i showed in my model making the industry of abortion far safer than it used to be. sources 10 and 11 are there as the general validity of my claims and are an interesting read at the philosophical side of this debate that I think all veiwers should read if they have time. they are in pdf format as I have downloaded them so have also provided the original books they are from to help you find them is the link doesnt work. 7) http://www.abortionfacts.com... 8) http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu... 9) http://esa.un.org... 10) file:///C:/Users/michael/Downloads/Abortion_Maternal-Fetal_Relations.pdf -- Abortion Maternal-Fetal Relations the beginning and end of life 11) file:///C:/Users/michael/Downloads/Thomson.pdf -- J.J. Thomson Philosophy...