Abortion

Hi, this is Con. I noticed you copied your text and pasted it, and I'm sure it was either unintentional or you were uncomfortable about the size of your argument. I will now look through your argument and try my best to destroy your ideas of justified murder. I also would appreciate if you would cut down on the sarcasm and slander. If you're going to be sarcastic, at least try to make it sound sarcastic instead of just saying "Con ought to be a scientist." Point 1-Dependence on mothers When a baby is born, he is every bit as dependent on his mother as before birth. He is helpless, he can't survive on his own. Are you going to deny his rights too? If a senior is on life support, can you just shoot him? Dependence is not a deciding factor on the giving of rights. A Baby and a Fetus-Differences A fetus is an unborn baby. A fetus is always a baby, but a baby is not always a fetus. The Link Between Fetus And Baby A fetus, by definition, is an unborn mammal. In this case, we are talking about human fetuses. A baby is a very young child, usually near the age of birth. Near the age of birth, however, isn't always the case. Many babies are cut down before they can reach that age. The Fetus is Dependent on the Mother You yourself are dependent on someone. If you did not lie about your age, I would say that you yourself are dependent on your parents to provide you with food and shelter. When you were not yet born, you were dependent on your mother. If she goes into a nursing home or needs to be on life support, she is also dependent on others. Is that really why you should deny someone's rights? The Legality Argument Yes, it is legal. Yes, I think that this is a mistake. Wasn't this argument about whether or not it should be legal or not? Point 2-The Mind The only reason so many people say yes to abortion. The Mind. The conscious. When does the baby develop this? The truth is, nobody knows. We know that before intercourse, the baby does not have one. We know that after birth, the baby does have one. But nobody knows when the baby develops it. Yes, the victim not having a brain is not excuse for murder. But the mind is, apparently. You imply that there is no mind without the brain. The truth is, no human can ever know for sure about something so abstract. We can't risk killing a baby if they could be conscious. Point 3: Excuse me for saying so, but I don't think inconvenience is grounds for killing a child. So you feel pain. That is a natural part of life (although you can take painkillers to greatly reduce it). You don't have to be destitute just because of a childbirth. Tax dollars and charities already go to abortions. A simple switch of funds, some maternity leave, and you can get back to your life. You can't kill a child because it is "more advantageous." Con completely gives a good idea that will cover the cost of childbirth. Con still adheres to the logic that a baby that just hasn't been born yet is entitled to not being murdered. This is not the same rights a a fully formed child because it isn't entitled to child labor laws, education, food, or a family. Conclusion The debate should not only be judged by the legality, but by the advantages of Con's world. We would have more children, and mothers wouldn't have to pay for abortion because they would get a free childbirth and all women would be entitled to maternity leave. In con's world, a human missing a body part wouldn't be classified as a non-human. In con's world, you would be a human being even if you were brain-dead.