Induced Abortions for Personal Reasons ought to be Illegal in the United States

Thanks for taking this debate Oboeman. > "Is any member of the Homo sapien species that has altered DNA (perhaps due to mutation) still the same individual, or are they a different one?" I am having an issue understanding this question and ask my opponent to please clarify. Do you mean: a. Is any member of the Homo sapien species that has altered DNA (perhaps due to mutation) still the same individual, or are they a different one? (fictional example: Spiderman) b. Is any member of the Homo sapien species that has altered DNA (perhaps due to mutation) still an individual [of the same species], or are they [of] a different one? (example: individual born with gills instead of lungs) > "As f[a]r as I know, there is no definitions section of the DoI, and therefore, it is quite possible that the definition intended by its writers would not interchangeably match the definition put forth by my opponent." Correct, there is no definition section; however, if we look at the current state of this country we can clearly see that these rights have been extended to those not of the male gender. Thus, the United States legal system currently accepts the idea that an XY set of chromosomes is not indicative of a person's endowment of natural rights. It is therefore logical to accept my definition of "men" with regards to this country's present state. > "My main argument here to counteract the resolution is that documents from over 225 years ago are not infallible." I completely agree with this statement; however, it is utterly irrelevant. My argument consisted of the fact that these rights CONTINUE to be the crux of our legal system. As my opponent has already conceded, our ideas regarding laws and society are based on the Social Contract. Natural rights are an inherent, indispensable part of the Social Contract: "…it is in an individual's rational self-interest to voluntarily subjugate the freedom of action one has under the natural state (their so called "natural rights") in order to obtain the benefits provided by the formation of social structures." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) While we may give up some natural rights, our forefathers set the precedent that some of our natural rights were the inherent rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". As these ideas are certainly still prominent in the United States legal system (e.g. The U.S. Constitution), they must be seen as relevant to our present situation. > "The human fetus is seemingly a parasite of its mother." Parasite: -noun 1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. Key words in the above definition: "another species". For my opponent to claim that a fetus is a parasite is entirely incorrect since both the mother and fetus are of the same species. But let's just assume for a minute that my opponent meant that the fetus is a "parasite" in the figurative sense. In that case, all humans act as a "parasite" on the earth. By my opponent's logic, doesn't this mean that we, the entire human race, should be considered guilty and our rights revoked? What an absurd insinuation! > "This, even if it does not directly put the mother at a life-threatening situation (which was established to be irrelevant in this debate), still may harm the mother, thus effectively breaking the Social Contract most logical in the United States." I fail to see any situation in which the fetus harming the mother falls under a crime in our present system, especially not one that would constitute the revocation of its life. > "Besides for the above, a human fetus is seemingly innocent, as in not having done anything wrong." It appears that my opponent recognized that his previous argument was fairly weak and has conceded that the fetus should be considered innocent. > "The right to life is desired, but not always feasible." Incorrect. Based on the precedents set forth, the right to Life of a human being is an inherent right. The WILL to live is desired, but not always feasible. > (My opponent's main question) "Why not at the individual sex cell stage? After all, each sex cell has the potential to become a zygote, just not all indeed become one. Surely, each of these sex cells would be considered innocent. Why is it relevant that they are haploid? Each human sex cell is life (from that of a human). When joined during fertilization, the resulting zygote is no more alive than the individual sex cells." The reason is simple really. We understand a human being's life to begin at conception. "Fertilisation[1] (also known as conception, fecundation and syngamy), is the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism of the same species."(http://en.wikipedia.org...) Until such time as the haploids completely fuse into a diploid, no new individual human life exists. Thus, on their own, the sex cells cannot be considered a human life. > "Therefore, my opponent must clarify when, specifically, a human being is deserving of the referred rights." At the point where the zygote (diploid cell) has fully formed. Being that as it may, I would like remind my opponent the topic he is supposed to be attacking hinges on Induced Abortions. Based on the definition of Induced Abortion, which he accepted, we are only arguing the termination of embryos and fetuses. I ask that he stick to the resolution, and not divert us from the topic at hand. I accept my opponent's definition of sentience, but for further understanding I offer the following definition: Consciousness -noun 1. the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) > "… if one does not yet have any brain to begin with (such as a fetus before brain growth), it would be logical to conclude that they have not yet developed to the point of acquiring the rights associated with life." My opponent has attempted to personally rationalize brain activity as being necessary for the right to Life of an individual. I, on the other hand, have given evidence that there is precedence in that all human beings inherently posses the right to Life in our society, and only forfeit that right when guilty of a heinous crime against others. While my opponent would like you to believe that the beginning of a human life must be the polar opposite of the end of its life, commencement and cessation of brain activity, this is certainly not so. I have shown that a new organism's (human) life begins at fertilization and brain activity is not a prerequisite of this status. If my opponent extends his own logic to sentience, it would follow that consciousness is the beginning of rights and unconsciousness would necessarily have to be the end of them. Therefore, any coma patient, regardless of whether or not they could actually awake, has lost their right to Life and can be killed without consequence. > "it would be wrong to punish parents for merely engaging in intimate relations, and receiving unexpected results." My opponent ignores the fact that we are not talking about punishment. If it is considered unfair "punishment" to have a law against killing innocent human beings, then we are currently punishing all citizens since laws against murder already exist. > "What is important, in my view, is that the respect of rights (life mainly) for sentient life remains intact." Again, if consciousness is the only indicator of the right to Life, we have no reason to respect the right to Life of those in any unconscious state. Their wishes prior to their comatose state would therefore have no bearing, and they could be killed without consideration or consequence. ***Out of Space ... will attempt to continue in comments***