Abortion is immoral.

Sorry for the missed round - I accept the loss of conduct point. == Re: CON's Case == 1. Pro says he doesn't have to provide a moral framework for justifying the ideal that abortion is immoral. This is absurd. He absolutely must, though he has not done so. What's his value here? Utalitarianism? Deontological ethics? I pointed out that utilizing ethical egoism, choosing to abort the fetus is actually the moral option. Pro hasn't claimed that this was an immoral standard, therefore using that standard to justify abortion MUST be accepted. As such, I have proven that abortion is NOT immoral. I have fulfilled my burden; the debate is technically over and you should vote CON. Nevertheless... Pro writes, "Not all lawful actions are considered immoral... unless my opponent wishes to challenge my premise, rights do not prove or strengthen Con's case." This is a completely random contention. I don't even know what premise he is talking about. The rights I am referring to have nothing to do with the law. It is my opponent's burden to prove that the fetus HAS THE RIGHT TO LIFE. That has nothing to do with the current law, but what the law SHOULD be. My opponent must prove through *some means* that abortion is IMMORAL. Without proving the fetus has the right to life, abortion cannot be immoral because there would be no person suffering on behalf of the immoral act. Is throwing a rock on the floor immoral? No. Is throwing a fetus on the floor immoral? It was Pro's burden to prove that it is. He has not justified the resolution. 2. Pro says that embryos have sentience and sperm do not, therefore terminating an embryo is immoral. An embryo is merely the fertilization of an egg with sperm. Neither by themselves constitute the right to life by Pro's own standards. He did not explain why the two coming together specifically constitutes the right to life whereas separately they do not. My claim has been that when consciousness is recognized by the fetus, personhood is established and the right to life comes into fruition. Rights do not pertain to the potential of what could be - only to what actually is. Since Pro hasn't proven personhood begins at conception, we have no reason to recognize a fetus' rights. The rights of the born take precedent over the un-born. Who has the right to dictate to a woman what she is to make of the functions of her own body? Such force would be a blatant violation of her rights. Therefore, abortion is not immoral. Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive [1]. I'm assuming Pro is referring to the fetus' ability to feel pain. Researchers from the University of California concluded in a meta-analysis of data from dozens of medical reports and studies that fetuses are unlikely to feel pain until the third trimester of pregnancy [2]. There is an emerging consensus among developmental neurobiologists that the establishment of thalamocortical connections (at about 26 weeks) is a critical event with regard to fetal perception of pain [3]. This means that only late term abortion would therefore be immoral even by Pro's standard. Moving on, my opponent claims that I have ignored a flawed description of what makes someone "human." Nowhere did I ever claim that only conscious beings were human. I challenge my opponent to quote me saying that anywhere in the debate; if he can rise to the challenge and post it in the comments section, I will vote for him. The fact remains that he has not provided any coherent definition or description of personhood, which was paramount to this discussion. Moreover, he completely misrepresents my arguments and once again draws the same illogical conclusion that people lose rights if they faint and are no longer conscious. I obviously don't think sleeping people lose their rights because they are in an altered state of conscious. However if they have never BEEN considered a person to begin with (and we have no reason to assume they are, since Pro never explained why they should be) then it doesn't make sense to give them rights we wouldn't give to another who was in a similar position of non-conscious - like say someone who was brain dead. 3. Risks Pro writes, "Unfortunately, any pregnancy complication is simply a CONSEQUENCE of the woman's actions, as I have shown above." This is completely inaccurate. Pro has NOT proven that, as quite obviously women often become pregnant against their will -- i.e., via faulty birth control, rape, etc. As I've already explained, my opponent has the burden of proving abortion is immoral in ALL cases. He apparently acknowledges this burden as he's never challenged that reality. As such, it was his obligation to prove that a woman must be forced to carry a pregnancy to term regardless of any associated risks, including the condition of her health or the fetus' health. I've argued that a woman has the right to determine whether or not it is worth the risk of keeping a seriously ill and defective fetus - especially if her own life was seriously threatened. The resolution is making an absolute moral claim: that abortion is wrong in EVERY scenario. That has simply not been justified. 4. Consistency Pro was a bit condescending here, demanding "NO contraceptive method will terminate pregnancy." However physicians across America have determined that birth control pills, IUDs, Depo-Provera, Norplant, etc. cause outright abortions [4, 5]. Therefore, extend all of my arguments regarding inconsistency. == Re: PRO's Case == After negating his syllogism, my opponent has changed his premises to: 1. Intentionally inflicting harm >on others< for the sake of expediency >for oneself< is immoral. ----> Pro has not proven that a fetus should count as an "other" with rights, so this premise is irrelevant. 2.The fetus is held within the responsibility of the biological parents. ----> False. The fetus is held within the responsibility of the MOTHER. Thus, the mother has the right to determine what happens to the fetus, which I've explained has a parasitic relationship with the mother host on whom it relies to live. Extend my arguments regarding the mother's right to govern her own body, and her right to not have anyone else force her to sustain a fetus at her expense. 3. In an abortion, the mother is trying to escape responsibility by the inflicting harm on another human life. ----> Once again, this is incredibly presumptious. Extend my arguments regarding a mother's many reasons for making this difficult choice. Pro also presumes to know my response, noting "Con must realize that it is ONLY because the biological parents acknowledge that the fetus was THEIR responsibility, are they opting for abortion." However I never denied the mother's biological responsibility; see point 2. The mother has a responsibility to make a choice and live with it, however she is not necessarily responsible to make sure the fetus is born. 4. Abortion is immoral. I've negated both Pro's original and second syllogism, thus this has proven to be an illogical conclusion. == Re: CONCLUSION == Pro says harm can be done to the fetus, even if it does not feel pain. I agree, though Pro has not explained why the fetus has a right to remain unharmed. If rights are not being violated, abortion cannot be immoral. Ex: I am not violating a rock's life by smashing it on the ground, doing so is not immoral. Again, Pro hasn't described personhood and when rights are established or why. I also reject his repetition that sleeping people do not have rights; see Con's Point 2. With that said, I'd like to thank Pro for the opportunity to debate such a competent opponent - he's definitely been my favorite on this issue thus far. Good luck! [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] Johnson, Martin and Everitt, Barry. Essential Reproduction. Blackwell: 2000. p. 215. [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com...