Abortion

I apologize for not posting sources form last round here they are: [1]: http://www.lifenews.com... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org... [3]: http://www.lifenews.com... Life begins at conception I do not understand why pro is undermining my source and point here. It goes against one of pro’s previous key distinctions. Pro previously asserted that there is a big difference between life and human life. Of course sources can be biased. If you are saying that all sources are biased why did you begin by attacking my source in the first place. I was not citing their opinion on the morality of the matter but rather a universally accepted scientific fact. The key is what is being sourced. Pro sourced an article about the opinion of somebody who is pro-choice. Pro claims that my argument is debunked because all sources are biased but based on that logic Pro’s is also debunked and no objectivity exists. I proved something that pro is objecting to here but agrees to in pro’s later arguments. Pro agrees that a life is at stake but makes a distinction that this is not a human life. I will try one more time. A life begins at conception also known as fertilization when the sperm meats the egg [1]. Pro is still yet to refute the evidence saying a source is biased doesn’t fulfill this purpose therefore the point still stands. A human? I’d like to establish where pro’s argument stands. Even if I accept pro’s proposed distinction between a life and a human life why is it moral to kill an innocent life? Additionally this life will become a human life even according to pro. Regarding pro’s first question about why are humans’ lives not counted while they are fetus, the main point I was making last round was that this question is not relevant to the science of whether a fetus is a human. It is purely cultural. Of course I agree that the status of a baby in the womb and out of the womb is different. We start counting people’s age not because now we can’t murder them by your standards but because our culture decided to do so when a baby is outside of the womb and living in the womb. When I came along and brought up cultural evidence you actually gave a similar response and said it was irrelevant to whether the baby is human: “This has absolutely nothing to do with whether something is to be considered human life. It's a matter of perspective; like the glass being half full vs half empty. An irrelevant point.” A key distinction is I said your point is irrelevant and still addressed it you did not. Killing a human life is not a matter of perspective! I understand pro that you did not say this directly but when you are saying that it is a matter of perspective whether something is a human life the effect is some people believe it is murdering a human life and others do not. I made the point that nobody should decide what a human being is based on their convenience, pro responded: “READING COMPREHENSION ERROR. This is something I agree with and never said, nor I claimed. The mother isn't deciding whether or not it is a human being.” This is utterly not true. Pro just said above that it is a matter of perspective and part of this debate is about whether or not this baby is a human being and if you are allowed to kill it. Pro’s second question was regarding adoptions. I answered it perfectly and said it is because the baby can be aborted before then. Again, our culture’s response has absolutely nothing to do with the science behind whether or not the baby is human or more importantly if this is a moral act. Pro concedes to the idea of women having moral distress for killing a “form of life” but still maintains that this is a moral act and that my argument is debunked rather than strengthened. Pro wrote: “Again, ignoring the question. IF A FETUS IS A HUMAN, THEN WHY IS IT NOT COUNTED AS ONE BY ANYONE OR ANY STANDARD OTHER THAN ANTIABORTION PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF? HINT: IT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE BIASED AND WRONG.” Pro you are literally citing the pettiest examples of everyday life and using it as justifications for killing what you would call “a form of life”. I concede to you that it is not a functioning being in our world that is capable of receiving the most important human right of buying items from a store. It does not mean that you can murder the baby. Women’s body Pro wrote: “AGAIN, THIS IS NOT KILLING. I'LL ASK YOU THE SAME POINT AGAIN, WHICH I'VE MENTIONED THREE TIMES TO YOU NOW: IS IT KILLING A MAN TO NOT LET HIM USE YOUR KIDNEY? YES/NO? NOT LETTING SOMEONE USE YOUR BODY TO SURVIVE IS NOT MURDER, IT IS NOT KILLING, ETC. Argument debunked (for the 3rd time now)” Pro is not being consistent. Why is this not killing? You can kill something that isn’t a human being. If you want to make the case that it is not a human being fine. But it is dishonest for you to say that it is not killing. As for your other point, I addressed it directly last round you ignored it. I will quote it for you: “There is a major difference between letting someone die and you actively deciding to kill someone for your convenience. I pretty much agree with the logic behind the kidney case but it is definitely not applicable.” Again, if you do not want the baby to “use your body” you can make that choice by not getting pregnant. Most of the times nobody is forcing a woman to become pregnant. Pro suggests that the killing of the baby is fine when the baby is “using the woman’s body” but when I asked my example if this can continue after the baby is born pro was quick to say no. The baby still uses the woman’s body to survive after it is born. The baby needs to be breastfed and can be killed if not [2]. Is it fine for the woman to refuse to breastfeed the baby? Or refuse to feed or take care of the baby and just let it die after it is born? She doesn’t have to take of it just like somebody doesn’t have to give a kidney. The reality is that once you get pregnant before and after the baby is wrong you have a responsibility to not kill it or let it die. Pro wrote: “As I stated very clearly, MULTIPLE times, a woman has the right to choose what she wants with her body. Until the fetus can live on its own WITHOUT the help of a woman's body, abortion is accepted.” These statements are contradictory. Again, if a woman is 22 weeks pregnant and beyond the baby can live outside of the mother but is still “part of the woman’s body”. It can only be one or the other. If the way to determine whether we could kill a baby is if it is part of the woman’s body than any abortion is fine even the ones where I proved that the babies can feel pain which you seem to have ignored. If it is based on living on its own, then 22 weeks and beyond should not be allowed according to this logic. Pro you need to separate your arguments. I was making the life support comparison to the viability argument not to the women’s body argument. Your response is proof that you can’t have both arguments because they contradict each other. Conclusion: Once again, my points about babies feeling pain during abortions went unaddressed. I think it is far more important for the morality of abortion if a baby can feel pain than if the baby can ride in the carpool lane. Pro had the burden of proof and it has not been fulfilled. Thank you pro for the debate and thanks to anyone who is reading. Sources: [1]: http://study.com... [2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;