Abortion Ought To Be Illegal

Pro has sought to Due to the nature of theological arguments on individuality and humanness of a fetus, I have not responded to Pros contention that a fetus is an individual as the uncertainties of biological theories would draw the remarks of an informal fallacy from Pro. Neither contentions are the most important issue as the resolution that pro has stated is Abortion ought to be illegal. If pro had written in his resolution a fetus is just like a human, then his contentions would warrant a response. However, because the contention does not directly relate to the issue my responses on said points are not required. Pro still accuses me of the nirvana fallacy in spite of an adequate justification. My opponent's example that the world is flat is false. In the middle ages, actually even before the middle ages in approximately 300 B.C.E in Hellenistic Greece Hellenistic astronomy proved that the world was round. The concept of a round world was generally accepted in the rich well educated nobility, whereas pro's consensus example is derived from at the time poor rural areas of Europe. So his example is false. http://en.wikipedia.org... Pro's states "The Child Is Not An Accomplice: Abortion is not justified in the case of rape for two reasons: 1. An abortion does not render the pains and trauma of the rape benign. The abortion is not magical, it fixes nothing. All it does is create another victim - the child, and that"s it. Let"s focus on the real issue (i.e. carrying out justice on the perpetrator). Any counter-arguments are made null by point two. 2. The unborn child is not an accomplice in the crimes of the father and is therefore innocent. There is no justice found in the abortion, there is only death. The 13th amendments and 14th amendments (and others like them) are void here because you cannot justify taking the innocent life of the unborn child. It"s oxymoronic. The Amendments in the Constitution are meant to protect the self-evident right that all men are created equal. And that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Any amendment or document that infringes on these unalienable rights are null and void." Pro's rebuttal is flawed based upon 2 reasons. 1. Abortion actually gives mental closure to the victim. They know that the ordeal is partly over, and that they do not need to endure the morning sickness or other physical/hormonal changes accompanying pregnancy. Pro's appeal to pathos in his reason 2 is in a sense similar to Senator Todd Akin's ignorant statements on Rape. The zygote is only working like biology dictates, it. However, the physical and hormonal effects that the zygote brings with development only rationalizes in the victim's mind that the fetus is an accomplice as she asks what she has done to deserve this trauma. 2. My opponent declares that the US is constitution is null and void on this issue based on his arguments. The amendments are not an oxymoron as they accomplish their purpose which is to provide our citizens who are alive their rights which the state nor federal government can deny. Oh and by the way don't quote the Declaration of Independence when referring to the American Constitution as it connotes the ignorance of one who does not recognize the different messages that each document presents. The Declaration of Independence gave legitimate reasons for American Rebels to declare a new nation by logically explaining grievances of the British crown. The US constitution gave the federal government the mandate needed to adequately govern the nation and safeguard the rights of American Citizens. Poverty is a justification as one is only delaying the inevitable despair. Economic hardship leads to malnutrition, and starvation or perhaps worse, but as one who has not experienced poverty I will not know all of its options. That is undeniable fact. If the teen is starving, and can not take care of the child, then what? According my opponent send the kid to adoption. Extremely ignorant and ignores the biological aspects that woman endures during pregnancy. In addition why would a woman/teen carry the fetus until its born and then separate from it? That's like working for 15 hrs a day and not getting a pay raise after 9 months of difficulties. Con has accused me of being ambiguous when I have placed sources which he could have checked to see the validity of my contentions. I will quote my opponent's argument and insert previous sources within each contention. "1. "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)" No conclusion. The fact that rape is tragic and that mental stress hurts does not prove that the unborn child has forfeited his right to live. The unborn child is not an accomplice with the father and remains innocent until proven guilty. He has not given us a clear reason why abortion ought to be legal." Check source http://www.buzzle.com... "2. "Then there's also unwanted teen pregnancies"" As the paragraph goes on, Con simply asserts the supposed effect of a teen pregnancy. There are unwanted teen pregnancies, but Con has yet to show why this justifies the termination of an unborn child." check sourcehttp://www.buzzle.com... "3. ""The Frontal lobe (the part of the brain that determines right from wrong) is not fully developed in adolescents (both male and female) until they are in their early 20's." Again, Con refuses to explain why the fact that the Frontal lobe is not fully developed necessarily implies that a teen does not have the capacity to take care of a child. Why? Because his argument is moot to begin with. Even when the Frontal lobe is fully developed we still have bad parents. Therefore, his premise (a teen"s Frontal lobe is undeveloped) does not necessarily lead to the unspoken conclusion ("Therefore teens cannot take care of a child")." check source http://www.edinformatics.com... My opponent's reply to one of Smidday's contention in the comments section basically means his concession as he states in his reply to Smidday (who says, "using contraception should be illegal as millions of sperm and eggs that could potentially be a person is killed.") Oxymoron states, "- Wrong, potential life is different from real life. Do not equate the two." A fetus is potential life, it is not born, it does not feel pain until the 30th week, it is not developed, it maintains homeostasis from the mother, it is a zygote until the 10 week, and is known as fetus until it looks human. So my opponent should be careful about maintaining consistency. Adoption really isn't viable option when most adoption agencies are funded partially by the federal government. http://www.childwelfare.gov... So if federal spending is reallocated from planned parenthood then what happens to the money? Most likely it will spent on defense instead of adoption agencies, leading to a theoretical decrease in standard of living and space. This is due to the increase in kids, without the increase in cash, but likewise this is hypothetical as politicians are fickle like the people. Therefore I urge a con vote.