Abortion should be illegal

To satisfy his curiosity, I challenged him to a debate because his position in the Abortion Section was listed as Pro with the comment “open to challenges. ”Proof of life beginning at conceptionThis is really basic high school biology. When the male and female gametes join, a new member of that species comes into being; whether it is a fish, a dog, or a human being. A fish will lay her eggs in the water and the male will inseminate those eggs. Those eggs will settle to the floor of the body of water and undergo further development. As they have no further interaction with the parents from that time forth, they must logically be alive from the joining of the sperm and eggs. Additionally, since they experience no change in DNA, they are the same species from fertilization onwards. Likewise, as the basics of sexual reproduction remains the same, the combination of sperm and egg results in a new human being. However, mammals have an advantage in that they are able to protect their young inside the mother until a later stage of development. This argument has been confirmed by medical experts under oath in front of a US Senate judiciary subcommittee [1]:Dr. Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes and discoverer of the genetic anomaly resulting Down Syndrome:"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. .. it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception. "Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University:"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive. .. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception. "Professor Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic:"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception. "While I could trot out more testimony I’ll skip to the conclusion of the official Senate Report:Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings. Additionally we can use general audience sources on this [2]:"Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization. "Or we can use modern teaching texts:A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i. e. , an embryo). [3]Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote. [4]A fundamental aspect of our legal system is that everyone is equal before the law as eloquently stated by the US founding fathers in the declaration of independence [5]:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. In this simple, yet complete, philosophical statement we clearly see that all humans are equal and that there is a priority of fundamental rights. To pursue Happiness all must have Liberty, and to have true Liberty you must have the Right to Life - the most fundamental of all rights. If the government has the right to assign or remove the right to life from anyone, it is no longer a right, but a privilege. if it is only a privilege then it can logically be removed from anyone. If the government can remove the right to life then there are no rights at all. As such it is quite clear that by simply being a member of the human race should legally entitle one to fundamental human rights, especially the most basic of which being the right to life. RebuttalMy opponent does not seem to understand what an abortion is. He asserts that an abortion is not killing the unborn, but that it is the cessation of help to the unborn. These are the following forms of abortion:[6]Suction Aspiration: A suction curette (hollow tube with a knife-edged tip) attached to a vacuum is inserted into the womb. The vacuum suction tears the fetus and placenta into small pieces which are sucked through the tube into a bottle and discarded. Dilation and Curettage (D&C): As above except the knife on the curette is used to cut the unborn into pieces prior to being suctioned out. Saline Injection: A long needle injects a strong salt solution through the mother's abdomen into the baby's sac. The baby swallows this fluid and is poisoned by it. It also acts as a corrosive, burning off the outer layer of skin. It normally takes somewhat over an hour for the baby to die from this. All of these methods are a direct attack on the unborn and not a simple denial of aid. My opponent appears to claim that a natural and necessary process for the continuation of the species constitutes a cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Biologically speaking, on a physical level, the fundamental purpose of every member of any species is the propagation of its own genes and of the species. As such, pregnancy cannot be construed as fundamentally cruel, inhuman, or degrading. I’ll briefly address the 6 conditions my opponent proposed when abortion should be legal.1. Early stages of Pregnancy: Actually when you eat a fertilized egg, you have killed an animal of that species. Egg, chick and hen are just age identifiers. If all humans are equal, logically the age of that human does not matter.2a. Rape: Conventional wisdom is that women who have been raped just want the problem gone. However, it is not necessarily the truth. Dr. Sandra Mahkorn, a professional rape councelor, studied women who had become pregnant through rape. [7] Only 15%-25% of those studied had abortions. Of those who had abortions most said it was pressure from boyfriends, family, etc. that caused them to have the abortion. The stigma is on the woman as to what she did to invite being raped. It is often those around her who want the “problem” to be gone so that they can pretend it never happened. In fact many women reported that the abortion felt like a medical rape [8]:This association between abortion and rape is not hard to understand. Abortion involves a painful examination of a woman's sexual organs by a masked stranger who is invading her body. Once she is on the operating table, she loses control over her body. If she protests and asks for the abortionist to stop, she will likely be ignored or told: "It's too late to change your mind. This is what you wanted. We have to finish now. " And while she lies there tense and helpless, the life hidden within her is literally sucked out of her womb. The difference? In a sexual rape, a woman is robbed of her purity; in this medical rape she is robbed of her maternity. Those women who carried their pregnancy though often healed better mentally as they proved they were better than the rapist in that they created something good out of something evil. In a similar manner women who are physically abused by their husbands often repeat that abuse on their children. While it is understandable, it cannot be considered acceptable.2b. Unintended. While it was not intended, the sexual act must be fundamentally understood as a procreative act. An innocent third party cannot legally be held responsible for the unintended consequences of the first and second party.3. The girl is not ready. Once again the unborn child is an innocent third party who cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. Adoption is an option4. Financial plight. We hold parents as guardians responsible for the care of their children, regardless of financial circumstances. Parents of a newborn would be thrown in jail for dismembering an infant because they thought it was too expensive to take care of. A woman is equipped by nature with all she need to feed a child. If the parents feel the financial burden will be too great, they can put the child up for adoption.5. Societal pressure. So the basics of your argument is that the government should enable a girl to kill her child instead of changing laws and enforcement to prevent the murder of that girl. That is illogical and not in keeping with the truth that we have already established, i. e. the unborn is a unique human being.6. Health of child. Once again I would not be permitted to kill an older human being with the same ailment. Once again since the child is a human being, what right do you have to kill that child? Nobody is more vulnerable or has less of a voice than the unborn who cannot be seen or heard. "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members. " - GhandiRich man argument: This is a false equivalency. In this case the rich man is trying to avert a natural, though undesirable, effect from occurring to his friend. His intervention attempts to prevent the natural death of his friend. In the other case the woman has intentionally interfered with a natural process directly resulting in the death of the unborn child. [1] Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7. [2] The Biology of Prenatal Development, National Geographic, 2006[3] . http://tinyurl.com...;[4] . http://tinyurl.com...;[5] . http://www.archives.gov...;[6] . http://www.lifesitenews.com...[7] Sandra Kathleen Mahkorn, M. D. and William V. Dolan, M. D. “Sexual Assault and Pregnancy” in Thomas Hulgers, Dennis Horan and David Mall, “New Perspectives on Human Abortion” (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1981) 194[8]