Regarding third-trimester abortions

Allow me to proceed. "So lemme get this straight... You're against abortion ... but if there was a medical procedure where the mother can cut off nutrients to the fetus and thus allow the fetus to die of starvation ... that'd be cool with you? As long as you don't literally kill it it's all cool?" I am still opposed to the killing of sentient life. I was merely stating in my Round 3 that it is MORE ethical to allow the parasite to die by default. Even though it may be MORE ethical, it is still UNETHICAL. The killing of sentient life is most deplorable. While Pro thinks that good government policy should take into account the economy, personal liberty, and quality of life, it must be remembered that Con shares those ideas. The greatest, fundamental difference between Pro and Con in this debate resolves around the inherent value of sentient life in our society today. Con claims that the value of sentient life largely dominates other values in decision-making, while Pro claims the contrary. There is one distinct reason that can be deduced as to why the value of sentient life largely dominates other values in decision-making, ultimately leading to Con winning this debate: If our society were to demote the intrinsic value of sentient life from decision-making, chaos would readily follow. The reasoning behind this involves the fact that the respect to sentient life is what holds our society together. If this value was lost, or even demoted, it would easily, and logically, lead to a slippery slope of questioning other fundamental ethics, such as the respect to children and babies (i.e. following the event of birth). Essentially, if it were alright to kill a fetus in the third-trimester (both of us agreeing it has the attribute of sentience, assuming development within normal parameters), then, logically, nothing would be wrong with infanticide. Considering that in your Round 1 you claimed that "a third-trimester fetus is the equivalent of a baby." First of all, let me set up a brief transitive property (A=B and B=C, therefore A=C). Let the killing of a third-trimester fetus = A. Let the killing of a baby = B. Let unethical = C. The killing of a third-trimester fetus = the killing of a baby. The killing of a baby = unethical. Therefore, the killing of a third-trimester fetus = unethical. (The above transitive property works assuming you consider infanticide unethical.) As well, do you consider infanticide unethical? Even if it were to improve the quality of life, preserve personal liberties, etc.? Considering you have agreed in your Round 1 that both third-trimester fetuses and babies are equivalent, and you support third-trimester abortion rights, then it is logical to assume that you would support infanticide rights. For voters reading this debate, ask to yourself if this is ethical. This was the slippery slope argument that I brought up. By the killing of a third-trimester fetus with sentience, it permits the killing of other sentient beings. Clearly, the killing of sentient beings is unethical. Sentience remains the greatest and most important value our society holds, universally, today. Of course, other values are also quite relevant, but an inherent analysis of these values deduces that respect to sentience if the most vital. "Every year, thanks to the One Child Policy, Chinese women across the country have no choice but to have abortions because the government mandates this as a population control. HOWEVER, it is in the power of the United States to allow all pregnant Chinese women to come into the United States. Should the US adopt an open door policy for all pregnant Chinese women?" I support first-trimester abortion rights (assuming development within normal parameters), and I am unsure of my own view regarding second-trimester abortion rights at the time. However, I stated in my Round 1 that the "abortions of third-trimester fetuses should be illegal in the United States." My objective in this debate was to argue that point, not the ethics of other societies. In order to abide by such policies, however, perhaps first-trimester abortions would be the optimal, preceding further development of the fetus. "An adult pig is technically more intelligent and more "sentient" than a 3 year old child. (Thus far more sentient than a third-trimester fetus) In light of learning this, would you stop eating pork?" First of all, just as a point of reference, many debate whether or not sentience is measured on a scale, or if it is indeed a black-and-white issue. However, regardless, I am for vegetarianism (for the most part). If you look at my profile, however, you will see that I am against vegetarianism/PETA. The reason I am opposed to that topic is because I am against the organization, PETA, for a variety of reasons. I am also Jewish, so it would be unlikely that I would eat a whole lot of pork anyway. =P To those who read this debate, I ask that you vote CON for the following reasons: I have established the most truth. I have debated logical points to support my initial claim. I have successfully rebutted my opponent's arguments. I have invalidated my opponent's analogies opposing third-trimester abortions. Again, I claim that third-trimester abortions should be illegal in the United States (assuming development within normal parameters), unless the life of the mother was at stake. Finally, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and the debate was fun, leading to enthralling discussion. I am also looking forward to reading your following rebuttal, Oboeman.