New Member Tournament: Abortion

I am going to start off by refuting my opponent's points and then reiterate my points. 1. Self Ownership Though there is a few cases in which abortion is justified, there is also a few cases in which killing is justified, such as in self defense. Indeed, if the mother is in danger of dying, abortion would be justified as self defense. However, that does not mean that abortion should be available in all cases, just like killing should not be legal because it is legal in the few cases of self defense. "we can see that about 13% of deaths in pregnancy are due to unsafe abortions. We are killing women because they are forced into aborting their child illegally." Most of the deaths from the unsafe abortions occur in developing countries. In 1972, when abortion in America was illegal, only 39 women died from unsafe abortions[1]. Approximately 529,000 women die during pregnancy every year, and approximately 13% of those deaths are due to unsafe abortions[2]. 13% of 529,000 is 68,770. Most of the deaths do not occur in developed countries, they occur in undeveloped countries were abortion happens to be legal. In fact, when abortion is criminalized in developed countries, not much happens to the death rate from abortions. In Poland, there was 59,000 registered abortions in 1990 and 0 deaths from abortion. In 1994, after abortion was criminalized, 0 people died[2]. In developed countries, there is little to no difference between illegal and legal abortions[2], and indeed, why should there be? "Comparing the results between countries shows that similar amounts of people are aborting regardless of it being legal or not" The problem is is that there is not the same factors in developed and undeveloped countries. Developed countries tend to have legalized abortion, and undeveloped countries don't. Similar rates should not matter, because they do not have the same factors. In addition, I ask my opponent a question. Could the fact that people still perform murders be used to justify legalizing murder? 2. Responsibility of Parent and the Value of Life "When the kid is in a state of deteriorating health, it is sometimes the parent's responsibility to pull the chord on them" The problem is is that the fetus is not in a state of deteriorating health, it is growing into a healthy, thinking human being. Could your statement be used to kill a random child in perfect health, or one in a temporary coma? If not, how is that different from a fetus? 1. A fetus is a human. "He equates a fetus to a baby in a coma; while in fact people in comas can think and feel. " Some people in a coma can think and feel, but most can not. The brain is usually involved with the most basic functions of keeping the person alive[3]. "it is easier and more justified to kill a human preventative, when it has no thoughts or feelings, than to kill one that is fully grown and aware" This assumes that the grown up fetus is going to have to be killed. However, there is no reason to believe that. 2. It is morally wrong to kill a human. "There are instances in which it is morally acceptable to kill a human. " That does not mean that it is always acceptable to kill a human being, just as though there are a few times when abortion is justified, that does not always mean it is justified. "a parasitic twin [...] that cannot fully function, and is relying on the nutrients of the fully healthy body" There is a difference between a parasitic twin and a fetus, and that is that the parasitic twin never will develop to anything near that of a normal human being. In fact, your own source says "one [twin] ceases development during gestation". A fetus does not cease develop, and your analogy fails. "there are times when abortion is a necessary act, there are times when a woman's choice to abort a baby is morally acceptable" There is also times when killing is morally acceptable, but that does not mean it should be my choice on whether or not to murder. "The woman is the one who has final say over her body, and her baby's body, (remember, in the a example about the parasitic twin, the parent will decide the course of action)" The siamese twin is essentially dead and will never develop, while a fetus will. A women does not have the final say over her baby's body. Infanticide is a crime[4]. Conclusion My opponent's case basically comes down to "there is a few times when abortion is justified, thus abortion should be legal". However, this does not work. Killing is sometimes justified in self defense, but killing is still illegal. Just because abortion is sometimes justified does not mean it is always justified. Sources [1] http://www.abortionfacts.com... [2] http://www.who.int... [3] http://science.howstuffworks.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...