Abortion should remain legal

Firstly, that con states ' a fetus is a complete organism, and therefore differs from any tumor, sperm, ova, or skin cell. The fetus is entirely capable of becoming a full-sized adult, unless it is otherwise stopped by an outside force. ' This is not entirely true, the fetus is not entirely capable of becoming an adult as it is entirely dependent upon the potential mother. You could say this about infants, however it is possible for an infant to survive without a mother. Con does adress this, stating that 'this is a bad criteria for personhood. This would again include animals, who are not persons. Furthermore, how does the place I am able to live determine whether or not I am a person? ' I would like to clarify that, from my perspective, this argument is about the fetus being completely and entirely dependent on the potential mother, making it essentially an extension of herself, such as a leg or arm. And in the same way, you could say a dismembered limb is your limb, but it is no longer a part of you and exists entirely separately. The argument about it containing human DNA doesn't seem very convincing to me, one in every 50 hotdogs contain human DNA according to a study, that does not give me any more reason to support it's existence than I would any other collection of flesh. I'd like to expand on my argument about rape, Con states that 'I live in a country where you cannot put even the rapist to death for the crime he has committed. Based on this, I cannot imagine a justification for putting the innocent child to death' I would argue that it is less about the fate of the potential offspring and more about the potential mother, who, after undergoing such a trauma, would be left to care for a child who may have no paternal support, may impact her career, may put her under financial stress and that she never wanted. In such a case, you have to ask yourself wether or not this would constitute the potential offspring as a child or a parasite. 'an organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense. ' - google next, I would like to state that while con believes that 'Those who perform the sexual act are responsible for its repercussions' I would argue that this mentality would not be used in circumstances such as broken bones from, for example, car accidents. Especially if the victim took all of the precautions necessary to prevent such circumstances, but either the other person involved failed them, or the precautions failed. We would still hospitalize and treat them as best as we can. They go on to state that there are other life-affirming options, such as adoption. However, Childbirth and pregnancy can significantly impact on the physical and mental health of a woman. Con states that we, as a society, do not tolerate the killings of innocents to improve one's own life. Meaning that if we can confirm that fetuses are not living humans, then we can disregard this argument. In response to my argument about potential offspring who will develop severe physical disabilities, I was presented with a situation in which I am asked what I would do if I were commanded to kill a large group of people who down syndrome or autism. I would. Allow me to explain: Doing so would most likely be a mercy compared to not only living with their disabilities, but being subjected to however those who ordered me to kill them would treat them upon having care of someone they don't want who are severely impaired. Nobody wins in that situation. On a side note: I simplified the analogy because if it were the Nazis who ordered me, I would be doing a service in undermining their authority. In regards to my source on children in foster care, i'd like to instead offer two other, more valid, sources. . https://www.nspcc.org.uk... . http://www.bbc.co.uk... However, Con does state that not all, perhaps the majority, of people in the foster system do not have mental health problems. This does not change that it puts them at a higher risk of developing mental health problems. Later in this paragraph, Con says that 'My point is, it is not for pro, nor is it for I, to decide whether or not these children should live. ' I would say yes, that it is the potential mother's decision to terminate the potential offspring or not. In fact, that is the basis of the next argument I would like to present. Almost 90% of UK abortions are performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. During this time there is no scientific doubt that the developing fetus is incapable of any form of conscious awareness. I would argue that this means the potential offspring is not an independent human, if life ultimately ends when brain functions end (at least, in most countries) then why shouldn't it start when brain functions begin? I believe that's a logical place to start considering the potential offspring to be living. If we argue that, until then, the potential offspring is not alive then we must also accept that it is essentially an extension of the potential mother, therefore making it's removal exactly what con describes it as in his opening paragraph. This is not just my position. UK law states that you can carry out an abortion, provided it's in the first 24 weeks. If you can not agree with 24 weeks, can we meet at 12 weeks, in your opinion? Once again, thank you con. I wish you luck in the next round. sources: . http://www.mirror.co.uk... . http://www.bbc.co.uk... . https://www.google.co.uk... . http://www.uppitysciencechick.com... . http://www.bbc.co.uk... . https://www.nspcc.org.uk... . http://www.scientificamerican.com... . http://thebrainbank.scienceblog.com... . http://www.healthguidance.org... . http://www.hon.ch... . http://www.nhs.uk... On a side note about sources, I would like to outline that con's first source on his second submission does not contain a single reference past the millennium. I believe this may make a large portion of them outdated and replaced with other, more up to date research. Although I don't have the time to examine them all.