The USFG Should Ban Abortion.

Thank you Donald.Keller for presenting your arguments. They are very well written and thought out but unfortunately they can be refuted which is what I will be using this round to do. This has been an interesting and challenging debate so far and I hope that this discussion continues to remain at the quality that it is currently at. Without further ado, I’ll begin with my rebuttals on my opponent’s constructive case. Premises I agree to both of my opponent’s premises (P1 and P2). They do not conflict with my position and they do not support my opponent’s. Ergo, agreeing with me is not a concession of any form. Living? Even under my opponent’s definition of life the fetus is still considered to be non living. My opponent claims that the fetus can excrete which is completely false. In fact, he misuses his source. If you check his source it does not mention excretion at all. This is bare assertion and voters ought to consider this as unsourced. Excretion is extremely rare and is not applicable to the fetus on a whole. When it does happen it often leads to Oligohydramnios [1]. This is a rare condition that occurs as a result of this. Overall, the fetus does not excrete, saying that the fetus excretes is a huge exaggeration. 96% do not have oligohydramnios, therefore it is incorrect to claim that the fetus can excrete [2]. As well as this there are other things that make it questionable. Respiration is not independently done, it is technically performed by the mother. Without the aid of the mother for respiration the fetus will die [3]. My opponent’s syllogism is incorrect. All eukaryotic cells are organisms [5]. This doesn’t immediately mean that they should be considered as living. An example of something that we generally consider to be non living but still an organism is a virus [4]. From this we can conclude that the fetus is an organism - but not a living one. The correct syllogism would be: P1) All eukaryotic cells are organisms. P2) Organisms can be living and nonliving P3) The fetus is eukaryotic. C1) The fetus is not necessarily living. Human? My opponent attempts to prove that the fetus being classified as a human is a truism and is only contested by philosophers who have little knowledge of embryology. This is false. There is a large difference between ‘human’ and ‘will be human’. Those that are against abortion often confuse the terms ‘human’ and ‘human being’. As Joyce Arthur put it, “a flake of dandruff from my head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense, neither is a zygote” [6] She continues with her example, “Anti-choicers will respond that a fertilized egg is not like dandruff, because the fertilized egg consists of a unique set of chromosomes that makes it a separate human being. But with cloning, a cell from my dandruff is enough to create a new human being. Although it would have my identical genetic make-up, it would still be a unique individual, because human beings are much more than our genes” [6] As many pro choice people have put it, the fetus (and the cloned cell) represent potential to be human. Not humans. The famous saying illustrates this nicely: “an acorn isn’t an oak tree and the egg you had for breakfast isn’t a chicken.” The fetus is comparable to the virus. The virus (which is considered nonliving) is dependant on a host cell. Just like the fetus is dependant on the mother. Humans, by definition, must be separate individuals from other human beings. As Arthur put it: “They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive.” [6] I do not assume that humans must be conscious or sentient. I do, however, believe that they must individuals which is clearly violated as I have explained. Human Rights My rebuttals essentially negate this contention however I will expand upon this more specifically now. Almost all constitutions do not treat fetuses as citizens. American citizenship is limited to people that are "born or naturalized in the United States" (as per the 14th Amendment) and the word "Everyone" in the Canadian constitution does not include fetuses [7]. Giving fetuses human rights would only result in countless legal and social problems that would be difficult to achieve. “Fetuses would have to become dependents for tax and estate purposes, be counted in official census-taking, and be subject to many other laws affecting persons. Wouldn't every zygote have to have a Social Security Number, as well as a Certificate of Conception?” [6]. The absurdity of this only proves that the fetus should not be considered to living and should, more specifically, not be given human rights. Even if you decided to make special laws and exception only applicable to fetus’ that would just make my opponent’s argument that the fetus is human to be invalid because they would no longer be recieving the same rights as human beings. Anti choicers, like my opponent, are contradicting themselves. They argue that the fetus deserve human rights because they are living however they fail to acknowledge that the mother is proven to be human and by denying them the right to an abortion you are denying them of their right to choice over their body [8]. This leads me on to the conflict of rights contention which I will now refute. Conflict of Rights This, again, is dependant on the premise that the fetus is a living human (which I have already negated). But even without the negation of that premise it is still a flawed argument. It is not proven that the fetus is a living human (and that is made obvious by the fact that abortion is such a widely discussed and debated topic). It is, however, proven that the mother is living. As well as this, my opponent attempts to show that 2 human rights violations are worse than 1. This is false. Human rights cannot be prioritized, 1 violation is just as bad as any number of violations [9][10]. My opponent then says that the mental security and happiness of the mother cannot and does not outweigh the fetus’ right to life. This is not true. Human rights cannot be prioritized [10]. They are both equally important, but when you consider the additional factor (stating that the fetus may or may not be living) then you ought to side with the human right prioritizing the mother because of the potential outcomes. If you prioritize the fetus then you are violating the mother’s human rights and the fetus may not be living. If you prioritize the mother then the mother’s human rights aren’t being violated and the fetus may or may not be living. Since we don’t know for certain whether or not the fetus is living we ought to go with the mother because if we don’t give her human rights then she is definitely losing her human rights whereas with the fetus it may be losing its human rights. Post abortion trauma is significantly lower than my opponent suggests. The myth that post abortion trauma is this common is false and has been severely critiqued. Post abortion trauma was diagnosed by PAS. ‘PAS is not recognized as a diagnosis in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association.' This is vital to note since after extensive research in both the UK and the US it was concluded that “he study on which the case for ‘PAS’ is based is extremely unreliable.” Ellie Lee, at the University of Southampton, posted her conclusion on the case using the following words: “There is no credible evidence for the existence of a Post Abortion Syndrome,” [11]. My opponent’s sources and statistics are wrong. The statistics concluded from my opponent’s sources are statistics from years: 1973 - 1987 [12]. The safety and counselling regarding abortion has significantly increased since then so the statistics are likely much lower than my opponent claims [13]. The Reverse Violinist This is a massive oversimplification of abortions. The analogy doesn’t speak or take into account: financial issues, the age of the women, rape or the possibility that the man she is forced to be hooked up to is possibly not even living. Furthermore, my opponent fails to explain the significance of the analogy. My opponent does not provide an alternative framework to mine and therefore the only framework we have to view this debate upon is libertarianism and this is a clear restriction that is being placed upon the woman. Consequently, it violates the debate framework because of this the woman would still be given the option to kill the man. This argument is so flawed that even if the example was an accurate portrayal of abortion and even if the example didn’t violate libertarianism it would still be flawed and wrong. This is simply because in this scenario the scientist would be held responsible for the life not the woman. The woman is addicted to the drug and therefore cannot stop themselves. The scientist is giving her the drug and is aware of the potential dangers that the drug presents. Ergo, if this scenario actually occurred, the woman would be allowed to disconnect herself and consequently kill the man and the scientist would be penalized and so would the woman (but with a less serious consequence) [14]. Therefore, the scientist would be held primarily responsible not the woman. The analogy is flawed due to this. Conclusion I have proven my opponent’s claims to be false in this round and have gone into depth about why the fetus is not living or human and as to why the mother’s rights ought to be considered more important than the rights that the fetus has (according to my opponent). My opponent’s contentions do not stand and their burden cannot be fulfilled. The resolution is negated. Vote Con! Sources in external link: http://www.debate.org...