Abortion

1. In response to the first section my opponent made two very intelligent conjectures. He stated that 1. My definition of life is incorrect 2. By the way I stated my conjecture, I have to award the rights to life to all creatures with a heart. 1. The definition of life is one of the most complex and confusing ones, and an entire debate could be given to this topic, so I will try to keep this section clear and concise so as to not overshadow the current debate. Scientists cannot accurately agree on a definition for life. However it is universally agreed that when an organism does have a beating heart, it is alive. In reference to the contradiction of the heart: The definition of a live organism and a live tissue is completely different. I think it will be agreed upon by the readers of this debate as well as my opponent that a heart is not an organism. Since we can separate these to entities the definition of a live "organism" and a live "heart" are to separate definitions. In reference to the fetus comment: Again you make an excellent point. To determine whether an organism is alive or not is again a universally complex question that has no definite answer. However, it is universally agreed upon that if an organism has a pumping heart, it is alive. Let me fully reply to your question. I believe that before the fetus's heart is beating the tissue of the fetus is alive, but the fetus as an organism is not yet. I sincerely hope that my explanation adheres to good logic, and I would like to state that the following is pure conjecture, and is not a scientific fact (because there are no definite scientific answers), but pure opinion on my part. I hope this explains my position more further. I would like to keep this section to a minimal (so as not to consume the whole of the debate) However if my opponent would like to debate that an organism with a beating heart is not alive, then by all means post away. 2. In the next section about contraceptives my opponent stated (and Puck if I misinterpret or skew anything you have said/your views please let me know in the next section) that: A. Contraceptives are fallible [fallible - capable of making errors] B. Giving people the choice of contraceptives and the day after pill violates their "rights of privacy" C. The costs of contraceptives will exceed those of abortion if sexual intercourse is consistent. D. Morning after pills may not be available at the time of sexual intercourse. E. That the system of contraceptives, the morning after pill, and illegalizing abortion is determined by chance and is harmful to personal freedom. A. In response to letter A, The birth control pill itself, when taking consistently is 99.8% accurate. The male condom is 98 percent accurate. Source: Hatcher, R. A. et al. (2004). Contraceptive technology: Eighteenth revised edition. New York: Ardent Media. When contraceptives are taken in combination, the possible chance of having a child is extremely remote. However it is conceded that while using contraceptives perfectly there is still a chance and there are still cases. However, Abstinence is a 100% way of not having a child. B. In no way is the right to privacy being compromised in any way. In fact in the constitution the word privacy is not even used. No government information is collected upon an individual using contraceptives. The government does not require individuals purchasing birth control to register with them? C. I never stated that contraceptives would cost less than an abortion, I stated that the morning after pill costs considerably less than an abortion. If sexual intercourse is consistent then the cost of the morning after pill will not exceed that of an abortion. The morning after pill costs 20$ The average abortion costs anywhere from 500-800 dollars. The morning after pill (plan B) is only used when birth control and condoms were forgotten. And it effectively aborts the egg. So unless the person having sexual intercourse forgot 35 times to use birth control or condoms, the costs would not exceed an abortion. D. Morning-after pill does not need to be available "at the time of sexual intercourse" that's the great thing about the morning after pill, is that it can be used the morning after sex, that's how it has received its name. In fact, the morning after pill can be taken 3 days after unprotected sex and still be 90% effective at aborting a child. E. The chances as I have described, are extremely remote, but they do exist. That is why sexual intercourse is a choice, and the outcome in remote circumstances (when using contraceptives) can be a child. Just as the choice to smoke a cigarette but at the same time using a filter can lead to cancer. The desire to have sexual intercourse is a choice, or personal freedom. However every choice has consequences. In no way is disallowing the death of a live fetus a restriction to freedom, but rather an enhancement. ---The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb. "[2] The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), ï¿½ï¿½1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) ï¿½ï¿½919a (Article 119a). As you can see under this section of federal law, a live fetus is considered human. In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly declared in article three, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. " The United States is a member of the United Nations General Assembly, and thus abides and is subjected to their rules. This was unanimously incorporated by the assembly and by the United States. Furthermore, the chairman of this committee was Eleanor Roosevelt. This is the justification for my conjecture. the recent recognition of fetal rights. In no way is it permissible to take the life of another human except in self defense or as a penalty for murdering another human. 3. I completely agree, public opinion is not how we solely make decisions in the U. S. , however we do use it as a factor to our judgements. That's why public opinion was lower on my points, because it adds to my debate, and isn't the core of it. Public opinion however, plays a role in the Supreme Court's decisions. 4. However as previously stated the law recognizes fetus's as humans and thus they should be entitled to the rights of the constitution. Cruel and unusual punishment is one of these basic principals by which the United States has come to run by. 5. Rights are certainly not derived from rationality. Can newly born infants reason? No, so should they also have no rights? Brain-dead and severely mentally retarded persons also cannot reason, but do they have no rights? Elderly citizens who have contracted dementia, are they rational? No. But do they all have the right to live and not be treated with harm? Yes they certainly do. Therefore I strike down your argument that rationality determines the basis for rights, especially the right to live. No where in the constitution of the United States does it give anyone the the "right" to kill a human being for any reason other than self defense (If your life is being endangered) which as I said if the woman's life was endangered, then my conjecture permits abortion.