Abortion Ought To Be Illegal

- Going OnThe Offensive -Con's Unrealistic Expectations: “In addition there is also multiple theories of when life begins. Some like my opponent believe that life occurs at conception, while others such as myself believe that life begins when the baby is born. By making abortion illegal without the consensus of when life begins would be forcing a theocratically tinged theory onto everyone.(2)”Here Con attempts at a sort of Nirvana fallacy by requiring a perfect consensus in order to come to a conclusion. There are different opinions on when life begins; therefore we cannot make a conclusion? Obviously that does not logically follow. It’s a desperate attempt to give an argument some validity and, thus, I’d consider his first point invalid.Con's False Dilemma : “Rape is a traumatic experience on a woman, and forcing the woman to care for the rapist's child would add unneeded mental stress on the woman after experiencing a traumatic incident. (3)”Rape is a traumatic and destructive experience for a woman, but it does not follow that the life of the fetus ought to be terminated. Con is attempting to set up a false dichotomy in which there are only two choices:1. Force the woman to go through the psychological pain of caring for the rapist’s child.Or2. Terminate the life of the child.Obviously those are not the only choices! There is a third choice that completely circumnavigates the murder of the child and the stress of the mother -- adoption.Con's Arbitrary Assertions and Second False Dilemma: “Pregnant teens are often not ready physically nor psychologically prepared to go through with a pregnancy. Also, ignoring health complications, a teenager is not psychologically ready for the responsibilities of raising a child.”To answer the health problems associated with teen pregnancy, I refer back to my Third point, which states: On the assertion that women retain the right to terminate a fetus is unjustifiable, with the exception of the endangerment of the mother’s life or other critical complications. Now, on to your false dilemma. First of all, it is arbitrary to say that teen mothers cannot handle a child. Secondly, you again present only two choices to the teen mother: Kill it or deal with it. These are not the only choices available, however. There is always adoption.Con Prefers “Financial Success” Over The Sacred Right To Life: “With a child to support teen moms often drop out of high school so that they could take care of the child despite having low chances for financial success. (3)”Therefore abort it? The conclusion does not follow. The view that financial gain trumps the right to life is, frankly, archaic. Con Takes “Financial Success” Over Life Again: “Also if, I was a father of a daughter and I find out she's pregnant do I want to punish her by making her stay pregnant and then care for the child? No, I wouldn't, after all that would be considered a cruel and unusual punishment as I am stamping out my daughter's education and future because of her mistake.”As a father, you ought to understand that the teen does not have to abort the child! There are plenty of families willing to take care of an unwanted child, including mine.A Closing Remark On Con’s Argument: Con’s argument is lacking on many sides. Have you noticed any attempt on the Con’s part to justify his position on the beginning of life? Neither have I. He has, however, attempted to discredit the theories on the beginning of human life by saying there is no consensus, which, as I have said above, is fallacious. - Defense of My Argument -How Are We Different From A Fetus?: “Your contention is like saying that sperm cells and eggs are alive so we should respect it with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”This leads us to an interesting question. Namely, are humans more than just a pile of cells? For the sake of the debate, I will hold the secular belief that they are not. I will assume that Con also holds this belief.If a fetus is just a clump of cells and an adult human is just a clump of cells, what is the difference between the two? I will give my response to this question and I expect Con to give his in his next response. Response: We Aren’t: On a secular point of view, it would be odd to suggest that we are anything more than a mass of cells (or even smaller atoms, etc.). On the same view, a fetus is also a mass of cells. Is a fetus, before birth, merely a constituent part of a woman like all the other clumps of cells within her, or is the fetus different? The fetus is a separate and individual entity - entirely separate from the mother and the other cells within her body. There is no concrete difference between individual humans besides their DNA and DNA expression. It is by this standard that we judge differences between individuals within a specific species [1]. The fetus’ DNA is separate and completely unique when compared to both parents [1]. Therefore, the fetus is an unique individual human being (a clump of cells that is within the species of Homo Sapiens) being separate in his mother and father in DNA and DNA expression. Viability is Not Uniqueness: “In addition my opponent will try to refute this rebuttal by stating that a fetus is its own separate entity. However, a fetus relies on the mother for nutrition and health via the placenta and umbilical cord refuting that contention. (1)”The fact that a fetus cannot survive without the mother does not negate the fact that the fetus is a unique and separate human being. Viability does not equate to uniqueness. The fetus is dependent on the mother, but so is a three-week old baby. How does "dependence" determine humanness, let alone whether that human being has a right to Life or not? We are all dependent on something - it’s our nature. Con Does Not Recognize the Purpose of My Secondary Point: “I do not know how you came to this conclusion as the Equal Protection Clause states, "All persons Born or Naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Note how the clause states all persons Born or Naturalized in the United States. This would not apply to a fetus as a fetus is not yet born, therefore your contention has been refuted. (1)”In my secondary point I state: “If it is accepted that a fetus is a living human being, the legal ramifications are dire. In the very same amendment that was cited as justification for the Roe v. Wade decision, i.e. the 14th Amendment, there is the Equal Protection Clause that requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction..."Note the bolded contingent clause. It has a purpose in the debate that Con has either ignored or accidentally looked over: I.e. that if my primary point is accepted (that a fetus is human and alive and is, therefore, an individual human being) the law of the United States would have to accommodate this and include fetuses as unborn citizens. I.e. the definition of citizenship would naturally change to include an unborn child. Con’s rebuttal is moot.Con Uses A Straw man Argument: “The contention of pro states that a women does not have the right to her own body.”This statement is completely out of context. My point is this: women do not retain the right to terminate a fetus, without just cause (I.e. the endangerment of the mother’s life or other critical complications). Con is attempting to discredit my argument by associating sweeping generalizations with my stance on abortion.And with that, I await my opponents response.Sources:[1] http://news.sciencemag.org...