Kleptin Tournament: Abortion

1. A Fetus is Not a Human Being My opponent brings up the Marriam Webster definition of a fetus that reads, "a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth." First off, my opponent disregards the fact that I said you will not find a definition of "HUMAN BEING" that has "fetus" listed off. Secondly, a developing human being is not a human being. Just as a developing plan is not yet a plan, or a develping car is not yet a car. I have already explained this in my prior round. Defenition negated. To answer my opponent's questions: Yes, a new born is a fully developed human being, and so is a child with down's syndrom. The process of becoming a living, independent organism has been completed (even if the child has problems or not). New borns, children with mental disabilities, adults, teenagers, etc all have the same characteristics that make them Homo sapiens. Just as your nervous system alone, or your arm or leg alone are not Homo sapiens, a fetus is not a homo sapien. The organism as a whole is the species. A fetus is not a whole Homo sapien yet. 2. Potential Life is Not Equal to Actual Life My opponent states that the criteria for life are, "must exhibit [1]homeostasis, [2]organization, [3]metabolism, [4]growth, [5]adaption to stimuli, and [6]reproduction." I will assume from his point that he wishes to make the statement that if something does not have all 6 of these points, it is not alive. We will follow from here... [1] To begin, a fetus can not survive outside of the human body. This is a criteria for life. A fetus relies on the mother's womb for homeostasis. Sperm relies on the male body for homeostasis. Sperm, unlike a fetus, can survive outside of the male body for up to 48 hours. A fetus can not surivive outside of the mother's womb (until it is fully developed). [2] Cells have organization. Sperm are cells. [3] All cells have metabolism. Sperm are cells. [4] All life started from a single cell organism. Single cells are highly differentiated, and definetly alive. Sperm are at the uni-cellular stage (which all organisms go through). Humans can "grow" because of their capacity to organize more and more cells. A single celled organism is still alive, even though it doesn't technically "grow." If my oppeonent wishes to push this point, then he must also prove that an amoeba is not alive. [5] Sperm can respond to stimuli. A fetus only starts responding to stimuli after its brain organization has been completed up to a certain point. Plants even respond to stimuli. If this was the only criteria for life, then uprooting plants would be murder. [6] A fetus can not reproduce until it is a fully developed human being. A fetus does not have a fully developed reproductive system yet. Sperm, however, can reproduce. Sperm go through meiosis. As we can see, sperm are alive. What we are arguing about is "Human" life. Organisms are killed every day. From brushing our teeth, to walking on the ground, we kill every single day. What is of deep concern to human beings is the killing of a human being. A fetus is not yet a human being. 3. Anti-Abortion Laws Infringe on a Woman's Rights I do not agree with my opponent switching up the resultion. The resolution which I have provided is, "Abortion should remain legal." This is a nice tactic to win this point from my opponent, but I will not allow this. Abortion is abortion - even when it is done to save the mother. It is still an abortion. The original opponent proposed that abortion is wrong because it is taking an innocent human life. If my opponent's old opponent was inconsistent with his beliefs, that is of no concern to this debate in which PoeJoe must defeat his old arguments. 4. Illegal Abortions are Dangerous Let us begin with this statement, "Besides, why protect murderers? If you have unprotected (heterosexual) sex, you should accept the responsibilities. You are knowingly accepting the possibility of a baby. I mean, should we outlaw social responsibility?" Accidents happen. Even when heterosexual couples use protection, they still have the chance of the condom breaking, etc. Also, rape does occure. Women who are raped should not have to go through pregnancy on top of being sexually violated. My opponent is also begging the question. He has yet to prove that these women are "murderers." My opponent then goes on to make this statement, "This, however, is not the case, and it is known that all fetuses die from abortions. So, if it is true that the legality of abortions does not decrease the number of back alley abortions, then my opponent's argument is void." And then he provides two sources which he has conveniently left out of the debate and finally posted in the comments section after I questioned him for them. For the sources of James Buckley and David Reardon, he has supplied the following two websites: [1] http://www.abortionfacts.com... [2] http://www.cmf.org.za... As we can see right off the bat, source number 2 is by a Christian Medical Fellowship. If we look up their Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org...), we see that they are a Christian Evangelical group that links together Christian doctors. In their medical ethics portion, you can see that they take a Pro-life, and hence biased stance on the issue. I refuse, and so should the judges, to take such a biased source. I demand an unbiased source that gives the information Con deems to possess. When you look at the bottom of the first page of source number 1, you will see that it is sponsored by a group called Heritage House. Here is the link to their website: http://www.heritagehouse76.com...; I don't think anyone should take a source seriously when the sponsor sells dvd's called "The Silent Scream" with a fetus on the front, and fetus models, among much more anti-abortion propaganda. Point negated. 5. A Human's Essence is Not Premeditatedly Determined by Some Destiny. Argument negated on the grounds that the women having abortions may not believe in a destiny god has given them, or believe in god at all. The implementation of anti-abortion laws under a religious clause such as this is violating the division between religion and state. My opponent must supply falsifiable evidence. Bible quotes are not sufficient philosophy or scientific proof. ----------------- 1. Adoption Exists Adoption means unwanted children. Our orphanages are over crowded. Children are neglected through the system like animals. The majority who do not get adopted are some of society's most tragic cases. . When they grow up, these children are often seriously disadvantaged, and sometimes inclined to brutal behavior toward others. This is not good for children, for families or for the country. There are hundreds of thousands of children up for adoption right now. Why would con want to put more children in this already over crowded system go through this horrible, psychologically damaging up-bringing? Also, my opponent is assuming all women who get pregnant are irresponsible. Again, con, accidents happen. A woman can take all precautions, and an accident can still happen. Also, again, rape happens. It should be noted that my opponent thinks it is a good idea to send a baby down river. 2. Abortion is unhealthy for a mother My opponent has not supplied a single source link to any of his claims. But even if he manages to dig up the actual sources, a woman's decision to do what she wishes to her body is her business. All that professional abortions offer is a SAFER way to perform an abortion that the woman would be performing in a much more hazardous way that leads to either immediate death or mutilation.