Abortion

ObservationsOV1: Con uses no sources in his rounds which you should note. This means that conflicting notions such as con's claim that the requirements for life are different to the ones I suggested should be ignored. I provided sources and evidence that the requrements for life are not the same as what con claims that they are. I provided sources and evidence my criteria in which I should classify life ought to be bought over con's list of classifications. It is also important to note that con essentially concedes when they provided their classifications for life due to the fact that the fetus does not meet their criteria as well. OV2: It should be made clear that the BOP is shared in this debate since we both have contradicting objectives to achieve. I must prove that abortion ought to be legalized whereas con must prove that abortions ought to be illegal. We both have positions to affirm and we both have our con's arguments to negate. Since con only brings one argument into this debate that regards to the fetus being alive this means that their position in this debate is severly mitigated.R3 Rebuttals Con states that I ignored their 4 characteristics. This is false. I have demonstrated that their argument fails under both of our definitions of life. I have also proven that you ought to buy my definition of life over con's one since I provided sources. Con fails to understand the parameters set. They also act contrary to their position. They present a definition of life which sets the parameter that it must be able to reproduce (bare in mind that con introduces this in their parameters too). They then contradict themselves and say that reproduction should not be a parameter for considering life because children who haven't gone through puberty cannot reproduce. I will make the same clarification that I made before. The parameters used to define life aren't used individually, they are used to define whether the entire human race is living. The answer to this is yes because the large majority of all humans will eventually be able to reproduce and the large majority can [1]. Killing children isn't acceptable to their sentience and consciousness and due to the fact that they will be able to reproduce in their current state as human beings [2]. I have already stated why the lack of ability to reproduce is a valid reason as to why a group of things (in this case fetus') is a good enough reason to dismiss it as a living thing. Con has dropped this. I proved that the fetus cannot respond to stimuli. Con states that I am wrong because he said reacts not responds. This is a poor rebuttal since they are both synonyms. I could have said that the fetus cannot react to stimuli and it would have meant the same thing as responds to stimuli. The fetus cannot react and respond to stimuli [3], can Con please respond to this sufficiently now. Con attempted a pre-emptive rebuttal to an argument that I may possibly make; I never made this argument, in fact I agree that the fetus isn't just a clump of cells but this proves nothing for Pro or Con and this argument ought to be thrown out of the debate for this reason. I said that the fetus is developing to become a human. Con states that this means that all men under the age of 33 are also developing. This a key issue that I'd like to address. The fetus is developing TO BECOME a human being [5]. Babies, children, teenagers and young adults are developing AS HUMANS [4]. They are still humans whereas the fetus is not [4]. Con excludes the main elements of libertarian philosophy which consist of two beliefs:1. The government ought to have less power and make less restrictions. [6][7].2. The individual is the most important member of society and their opinions and rights ought to be prioritized to the highest level of their ability to do so [6][7]. Life is important in libertarianism however less government restriction is also extremely important factor and by preventing somebody from having an abotion is a restriction that libertarians ought to avoid at all costs [7]. As my contentions have described, this is a violation of the women's equality and human rights. By preventing the women from having an abortion you violate the women's right and you also violate libertarianism. Being against abortions violates the two most important libertarian ideologies, this means that it is an overall violation of libertarianism. Con provides no alternative framework and mine still stands, you ought to vote Pro baed solely on the premise that under my framework abortion is morally permissable. He asks me a question: "Do you think he/she WANTS to live in someone who wants to kill it?"The answer to this question is that the fetus isn't alive and it doesn't have an opinion. No matter whether you're for or against abortion everybody acknowledges that the fetus isn't able to formulate opinions [8]. Con's old man analogy is faulty. He fails to consider financial issues but that isn't the only problem. He forgets that the fetus doesn't care if it's on the boat or not, neither does it care if it on board or thrown off because if the boy represents the fetus then this boy must also not be able to think or have opinions [8]. I have also demonstrated that the fetus isn't alive. This means that con's analogy based on the premise that all possible outcomes and situations haven't been analyzed and the fact that con hasn't acknowledged that the fetus cannot think or forumlate opinions, means that the analogy fails. I do not advocate infanticide / killing children, the scenarios are completely different as I have already proven. Con's rebuttal to the fact that most abortions are done at the stage where the fetus is DEFINITELY not alive. The ebryo is less developed than the fetus and cannot feel pain or think or respond to stimuli etc. [9]. Con makes the mistake of calling the fetus a human. The stages begin with the fertilization of the sperm and egg, the embryo, the fetus, then the human. There is a distinguishable difference between the fetus and the human [10]. I still advocate the fact that we must look at things as a whole and looking at people with disabilities is not applicable in classifying life as people with disabilities still belong to the same species as us. Con's next rebuttal is subjective. He states that abortion isn't a right. Life is. It is still under his BOP to prove why. Until this is done there is nothing to refute. This is all bare assertion.Con says that illegal abortions should be punished but doesn't refute the argument that says that the problem won't be solved anyway. I have shown that in places where abortion is illegal, illegal abortions still occur. The consequences are much worse than what Con suggests as a result of these illegal abortions. Sometimes the baby and mother die or are severely injured in the process. If you legalize abortions then people won't be inclined to do it illegally and they will do it legally - ie. safely.Con is contradictory. At first they say that the most important right is life and emphasize that life is extremely important and that aborting the fetus is murder, they then say that the mother should receive death by stoning. This is contradictory to the case and is a concession - it negates the only argument that they provided. I never that the teenagers were below the legal age of abortions being allowed. I said 18-19 year olds which is old enough [6]. The argument talked about teenagers missing out on their lives. This means that it still stands and has been dropped again. Con respond to human rights by saying that he supports the right to life. This doesn't make sense; he says that we should stone the mothers to death which is not supporting the right to life. Sources[1] http://bbc.in...[2] http://bit.ly...;[3] http://bit.ly... [4] http://bit.ly...;[5] http://bit.ly...;[6] http://bit.ly...;[7] http://bit.ly...;[8] http://bit.ly...;[9] http://bit.ly...;[10] http://bit.ly...;