Resolved - Abortion Should Be Legal

My opponent stated that merely because a fetus is not as 'intelligent' as a fully grown human, it's life is not less precious. However, this was not the basis of my argument. My argument was more about the subconscious - such as self-awareness. These are the traits that differentiate people from animals or plants. My opponent then asked that if fetuses are comparable to animals, 'should animal abuse be legal? Should abusing the mentally disabled be legal?' Absolutely not. There is a difference between torture/abuse and the humane killing of something. We do it with criminals, with dogs with rabies, even just for sport! If we are to consider a fetus to not be truly a human yet (if my opponent wishes to argue that point, I invite them to), then killing it humanely certainly does not fall into the same category as animal abuse (a fetus can't feel pain until the 28th week of pregnancy, and most states require doctors to take measures to minimize the pain a fetus would be feeling after this time). My opponent then said we cannot make the argument that a fetus is comparable to a parasite, as the definition of a parasite is an organism that lives on an organism of another species. However, I looked into it, and I could not find where you found the part of the definition where a parasite has to attach to a different species. The definition I found was 'an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense' (no mention of different species). An alternate definition is 'an organism that lives on or in a host and gets its food from or at the expense of the host'. Please tell me where you found this definition and I will certainly reconsider that argument if it seems inaccurate. My opponent went on to say that, by comparing the life of a fetus to the life of a parasite, I was saying the life of a person and such a parasite are equal. That is not at all what I was saying; I had already explained my belief that a fetus is not necessarily a person. Again, if you wish to argue with me on this point, feel free. Next, my opponent countered my claim that the Pro-Life community should devote at least the same number of resources towards preventing miscarriages and other natural causes of death in fetuses as abortions, as the natural cycle takes far more lives than abortions. They compared it to saying those working on cures for HIV should devote the same number of resources towards curing cancer, as it claims so many lives. However, this is not a fair comparison. For one thing, there ARE people working to cure cancer. Although there is some scientific work done to try to predict miscarriages, or to help get a woman pregnant (by which I mean artificial insemination and the like), there seems to be very little done to prevent the deaths of zygotes in early stages. Even if there is, it is certainly not receiving any of the publicity and public support as cancer is. But that's not what I wanted you to take away from this. My point was that if the Pro-Life community is truly focused on saving the life of EVERY fetus, they should focus on every cause rather than one specific, comparatively small part of the problem. Then, my opponent stated that the Pro-Choice community tends to favor more government interference in other aspects of life. Although this is not really what this debate should be about (this reaches towards a broader scale of general liberal beliefs) I will do my best to counter all the claims: Liberals are not against the right to bear arms. We merely think there should be more gun control because of high homicide rates. Because we don't consider fetuses to really be people, we don't consider abortions 'homicides'. We are against fighting ISIS because we are concerned about the lives of our soldiers and people, not the lives of terrorists. (For the record, I'm for military intervention with ISIS - just not on a large scale). We are against the death penalty because we believe a life in prison is more of a punishment - you're going to die anyways, might as well get a few decades of boredom and regret in beforehand. Again, as we do not consider fetuses to be people, we don't think that abortion is comparable to the death penalty. My opponent then argued against my claim that the Pro-Life communities fixation on abortion implies a motive rather than the life of a fetus, given their neglect of other causes of fetus death. And it's true that most every-day Pro-Lifers simply want to preserve the life of a fetus because they believe it's a human being. It's the institution I don't trust. If you look at most Pro-Life politicians, you'll see that most of them are conservative. Many (but not all) are evangelical. These same people are the ones that opt for the defunding of organizations that support women who can't afford to take care of a child but don't want an abortion, the ones that provide safe birth control to poorer women (which, by the way, is the #1 way to prevent abortions - prevent unplanned pregnancies), and the ones that provide care and shelter and food to children. What's the point of making sure a child is born if you're going to take away its chance at a better life? If the institution isn't really concerned with the conservation of a life - not just survival, but a life - then it must have an ulterior motive - it may be subconscious, hidden even from the person it lives in, but it must be there. Thank you for your time. Sources: http://www.cdc.gov... http://discovermagazine.com...