Choose Any Topic!

Disclaimer You're position was left undefined properly until after I had accepted to debate this topic. It was not stated in the resolution that I agreed to that the fetus can be aborted in some circumstance due to the fact that even if the child is harming the mother, my opponent's position ( in terms of the original resolution that I agreed to ) states that he must argue that abortions shouldn't be illegal and since no exceptions are made under this original resolution then I see no reason as to why my opponent should be allowed to alter it after my acceptance. As my opponent correctly states, in this scenario the fetus is not innocent however this was an argue I had used in my case due to the lack of coincision between both of our interpretations of the resolution. Since the original resolution is the one that both parties accepted to, we ought to abide by that and therefore this argument goes in my favor and my opponent has conceded this point. Definitions The definition of abortion has been altered to include [up to 24 weeks] into the prenancy. My opponent has agreed to the definition that I presented and therefore this is the new definition of abortion in this debate.Libertarian Framework An abortion is NOT equivalent to a murder because in order for abortion to be considered a murder then the fetus must be considered to be a living thing. I will address my opponent's contesture to the fetus being alive next. If I successfully refute my opponent's argument that argues that the fetus is alive, then my libertarian framework also stands since you cannot murder a non living thing since it violates the very definition of murder iteself [1]. This definition states: 'The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another' [1] as the definition of murder. Also, even if the fetus is even alive, I have already demonstrated that the fetus is unable to sense and has no consciousness in my arguments [2]. Even if you buy that it is alive, it is certainly not harming anybody since the fetus cannot sense and has no consciousness. Is the fetus alive?My opponent says that we can look at the fetus as a whole or as a sum of parts to determine whether or not it is alive. This is not true. My opponent makes an argument showing that the fetus is alive if we look at it as if it were a sum of parts - I agree. However this argument is completely flawed since the system that biologists have constructed to determine life can only be used to assess species on a whole - not their individual parts [3]. My opponent then attempts to show how the system of looking at things on a whole is flawed because some people do not meet these requirements. Again, my opponent fails to understand the system. The system is used to assess SPECIES on a whole (as previously mentioned). If a few people the minority are unable to meet parts of the criteria, they still human beings and human beings are able to meet this. If 1/1000000 dogs don't grow (hypothetically speaking), this doesn't mean that biologists are going to classify dogs as non-living since this does not correctly represent the species on a whole which is how the classification system works. He fails to understand the Law of Biogenesis because the Law of Biogenesis states that only life can come from life. This is true. What is meant by this, is that only a living thing can produce another living thing. This does not mean that non-living things that become living at a specific stage violate this rule since they are coming from their mother who is a living thing. Illegal AbortionsNot all abortions are unsafe. Stating that all abortions are unsafe is completely untrue - even under the definition provided of 'unsafe.' As I have already demonstrated, the fetus isn't alive so harm is not possible [3]. Furthermore, I have already also proven that the fetus is unable to sense and is not conscious, therefore it cannot feel pain or harm. Normal abortions are statistically safer than illegal abortions as demonstrated in the original premise since illegal abortions have been known to kill the mother as well as the fetus and by doing this they ARE inflicting harm and thus they can be referred to as illegal / unsafe abortions [4]. According to my opponent, instead of legalizating abortions in these LEDCs, we should improve their economic state. I'm surpised that he thinks that such a huge thing can be achieved. Do you think that it is possible for us to pay for every single underdeveloped country to be as developed as us? The costs would be huge and fatal to our own economy. The US already spends over half a trillion dollars on abolishing povery [5] and if we even want to get rid of all extreme poverty (not all poverty), we are going to have to pay an additional $175 billion [6] on top of this figure and even after all of this, we will have to continue to do this for the next 20 years for extreme poverty to be abolished [6]. Even if we do abolish extreme poverty, this still won't be enough to improve the economic state enough to stop illegal abortions occuring. We still have to help these countries: industrialize, remove poverty further, urbanize, etc. The much easier solution would be legalize abortion. There is no point in spending all of that money just to prevent illegal abortions. Underage Teenagers Firstly, who said that all of these teenagers consented to sex? Almost half of all teenage girls have been forced into doing some sort of sexual act [7]. Whether it was by their friends, they boyfriend or a rapist, the problem is massive and sexual acts includes unprotected sex. Even for those that do, my opponent's analogy in regards to gambling is flawed. If I participate in illegal organ trade should I then be held responsible for facing the consequences of being denied health care? This denial of health care can (and has) caused death. Now let's look why they were denied their health care: they were denied health care because they participated in illegal organ trade so that they could help others and stop them from dying [9]. Ashley Moore helped those less fortunate than herself who were denied access to organs, to illegally have these transparts to save their lives [8]. Then when Asheley Moore needed one, they let her die because she wanted to help others [8]. This is a violation of the libertarians individualistic beliefs (which is what this debate is based on as shown from my framework), the libertarian values the individual and therefore, the libertarian would save the individual. Adoptions are not the alternatvie! "Experts have found that many biological parents who place their children for adoption go through an immense grieving process, one that may last for decades. In one study cited by the Child Welfare Information Gateway, three-quarters of birth mothers still experienced feelings of loss 12 to 20 years after placing their newborns." [10] This is a powerful demonstration of how adoptions can lead to depression. The disadvantages of adoption don't end here. Randy Bencanann expresses the disadvantages further: "[It is sad to watch mother's] undergoing nine months of pregnancy, withstanding inquiries from family or acquaintances about their plans for a baby, allowing near-strangers or people they had only come to know in the last few months to love and nurture their child, and then trusting those people to follow through on post-placement contact agreements." [10] Gender Equality I have already shown that not all women consent to sex and even if they do consent to sex, I have already shown that it is a violation of women's human rights in regards to gender equality that they should be allowed to have an abortion even if they did consent. P1: The fetus does not have human rights because it is a fetus not a human. The fetus has been demonstrated to be considered to be non-living and therefore the fetus isn't applicable for human rights [11]. The rest of my premise structure has been dropped. My syllogism stands. The slavery comparison is faulty due to the fact that the slaves actually met the qualifications to be alive scientifically. They were human beings with no differences from any other person, apart from their skin colour - which I agree is unacceptable. Slavery was opinionated, there was no scientific evidence proving that they were inferior or that they weren't human beings. The fetus has a huge amount of scientific evidence showing that it is NOT alive. Objective evidence =/= bare assertion. Mother's Life I have already responded to this. The fetus cannot be harmed since it is not a living thing [3] and because of this. My opponent's statistic stating that 100% of abortions are unsafe is faulty and is thus it is false. He then misinterprets the article that I originally provided. The article provided was in regards to maternal mortality. If he had scrolled down, then he would have been provided with an explanation to all of the statistics and this explanation was in regards to pregnancy and abortion oppurtunities. He has completely taken my source out of context and twisted its meaning.Sources[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;[2] http://www.debate.org...;[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk...;[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[5] http://www.forbes.com...;[6] http://www.visionofearth.org...;[7] http://lifecharity.org.uk...;[8] http://www.mirror.co.uk...;[9] http://www.debate.org...;[10] http://rhrealitycheck.org...; [11] http://www.equalityhumanrights.com...;