it it wrong to have an abortion

Resolution: It is wrong to have an abortionThis is the resolution, and PRO had the entirety of the BOP to prove to us that abortion is, in all cases, categorically wrong. She has failed to do that; therefore, this debate is already over. Nevertheless, I will respond to her contentions. Pro states, "I did state morally not scientifically like you were. "I was speaking in terms of morality, but the scientific question is relevant, as well, because PRO used it as the justification for her position: she said in Round 1, "morally it's wrong because as soon as sperm and egg meet it's a baby. " I merely pointed out not only that she hadn't backed up this point, hadn't proven objective morality, and hadn't established personhood and distinguished it from life. She hasn't addressed these points. Pro states, "If I was stating the question in scientific form I main question would be when do you define a baby someone say it's as some as a sperm and egg meet others say a certain amount of weeks. "Again, PRO used an appeal to science in an attempt to justify her position, but is not admitting that other people may disagree with her as to when a fetus or a zygote is a "baby. " This is a concession on my point that morality is subjective. If morality is subjective, then PRO's attempt to state that abortion is categorically wrong falls flat. Pro states, "you comment when I on the point of being born free. to be born free doesn't mean that the woman is aloud abortion since the born isn't born yet. I fact it means that no harm should be inflicted on them on purpose. The baby should be free of death in the womb and out outside the womb. "Note that PRO argued in Round 1 that you have a right to be BORN free, but a child in the womb hasn't yet been born. If she is applying this to yet-to-be-born lifeforms, why doesn't it apply to yet-to-be-conceived lifeforms? She dropped the point I made about "being fruitful and multiplying. " Next, she points to a "baby" inside the womb, but admits herself that when we define the fetus as a baby is subjective, so this point once again falls flat. Then, she says that "no harm should be inflicted on them on purpose. " This, of course, is an appeal to objective morality, when she has already conceded that it doesn't exist, and even this point falls flat because committing an act on purpose is not, necessarily, out of sptie. If a mother is going to die if she carries a baby to term, and gets an abortion because of it, she is merely protecting her own life. How can PRO assert that this is a categorical wrong, when no matter how you frame the discussion, a life -- in fact, if the mother didn't get the abortion, it's quite possible that TWO lives could be lost, so in fact the utlitarian case is on my side -- will be lost? Pro states, "adoption centre maybe full in some parts of the USA but they are barley full in the UK meaning the child can have a peaceful, health and most important happy life with either a new family or the care workers till the age of eighteen when they'll be able to live on their own"First, she concedes that adoption centers are full in the U. S. and doesn't contest that this is a viable point AGAINST her argument. Then she asserts that adoption centers are "barely full" in the U. K. She has the BOP. Where is her evidence for this claim? Without any evidence, the point has to be discarded, as can the rest of her piece because she fails to account for (1) how this would be possible (2) that it would be morally justified for people involved to have to go though the trouble of carrying a child to term whom they don't want (3) how it could be justified for the child involved and (4) that adoption centers themselves may be a cruel existence. She again refers to a "child. " But she conceded earlier that the fetus in the womb may not be a baby by everyone's standards, so her language is nothing more than deceptive. Pro states, "[I]t is illegal to kill anyone disable or not so then why is it ok to kill a disable baby isn't decimation against disable person saying their live is worthless if they're unable to speak or they're missing few limbs. "Pro is AGAIN obfuscating because she conceded earlier that people may differ in terms of when they define a fetus as a "baby. " So equating a fetus in the womb to maliciouslly killing a sentinent, breathing, disabled person is nothing more than a false equivalency. Pro states, "in all types of situation it's wrong to kill a baby even if they were an accident" Pro DROPS my points on extreme cases -- rape, incest, endangerment to the mother's life, etc. She hasn't proved this point in the slightest and has already conceded on objective morality. Pro asks, "would you kill your know child if he/she is an accident? ?? ?? "This point is once again deceptive as Pro has concede that a fetus is not by everyone's standards a baby. Pro says, "if you wouldn't [then] vote for me. "This point is unbelievably fallacious, because no only was her earlier point wildly deceptive, but people do not vote with respect to their opinions on a topic being debated, but only on their judgment of the debate itself. I think it is quite offensive that Pro would ask our audience to do this. Again, she had the BOP and hasn't met it, so it's obvious for whom you should vote. Pro says, "I think as soon as the sperm and egg meet it's a new live. "Pro states this as her opinion. Please note the points I have made over and over about the distinction between life and personhood, about when you define a life as a baby, the points about objective versus subjective morality, et cetera. Pro says, "let me give you a scenario about abortion;"She didn't give us a scenario, so there is nothing to rebut. With my remaining character space, I am going to rebuild my contentions: (1) Pro never denied that she had the burden of proof. (2) Pro conceded on objective versus subjective morality, though kept asserting her point -- only asserting, without providing any evidence or justification for it. (3) Pro didn't address the point I made about a concession on subjective morality meaning that her burden was impossible to fulfill. (4) Pro drops the distinction between life and personhood. (5) Pros drops the point on implanation and miscarriage. (6) Pro drops my point about yet-to-be-born lives -- notice that I didn't say "babies. "(7) Pro drops my point about the physical and financial burden to the mother and the family of carrying a child to term. (8) Pro did not provide adequate justification for her point on adoption clinics, and why even the mere existence of them would justify imposing this burden on a mother and a family. (9) Pro drops my bodily autonomy argument. (10) Pro completely drops my "extreme cases" argument. She needed to adequately address this in order to prove that abortion is categorically wrong. (11) Pro dropped my "gray areas" point, and how the fact that there exist gray areas is an argument for abortion being left to the people most intimately involved, instead of legislated by the government. (12) Pro effectively conceded on my points about subjective morality. There isn't anything left to rebut. Pro hasn't fulfilled her burden of proof and has dropped far too many points. She needed to prove to us that abortion is categorically wrong, and has failed to do so.