Abortion (See for scenario)

I will address your second point about choice before addressing your first point about killing. _______________________________________________________________________________________________Rebuttals:Choice in AbortionCon has claimed that if asked, an unborn would decide that it would want to live. I would like to remind Con that Con has the burden of proof to this claim. No unborn has ever provided an answer to this question, therefore Con's claim is an assumption, and not an "inferred answer" like he suggested. Furthermore, if it is a zygote, like I made clear in round 1, it does not have a brain[1]. It is physiologically more similar to a piece of flesh than it is a human. Brains are needed to think and make decisions. Because it doesn't have a brain, a zygote cannot make a conscious decision. However, I believe Con is saying that if they had brains, they would choose to live. I would like to remind Con that once a fetus has a brain, it is no longer a zygote, and I am arguing for while it is still a zygote. Having taken advanced psychology courses, I have learned that the humanistic perspective of psychology states that freewill and conscious experience is essential to the human experience, which contributes to its decision making skills. An unborn child has not experienced anything yet, so therefore it cannot make a decision. If I asked you why you wanted to live and not to die, you'd say something along the lines of "Because living is great and dying is painful and it sucks. " An unborn child does not know what life, death, great, and sucks would entail because its never lived, died, felt pain, or had a particularly inconvinient situation that sucks. Therefore it cannot make a decision as to whether or not it would want to live. Because the mother has the ability to chose and the zygote does not, we should prioritize on the mother more than the zygote. Killing and AbortionCon implies that he does not wish to debate about whether a zygote is considered a life or not and simply places the line himself. I must disagree. It is neccessary to establish where to put the line as to when a human life begins, otherwise this debate will not advance. However, Con wishes not to discuss this, and I will oblige with his placement of where the line is on life. From Con's statements, he is implying and assuming that a zygote is considered a human life. As stated by me above, a zygote is more physiologically similar to a piece of flesh than it is a human being. It is also more physiologically similar to sperm cells and any unicellular organism than a human being. Therefore, any unicellular organism is equivilent to a human lifewise. It is true that zygotes have life, just like skin cells, sperm cells, cancer cells, and pretty much any other cell. But by Con's logic, he is also implying that killing skin cells, sperm cells, and cancer cells is imoral. By this logic, scratching our skin is imoral because it kills skin cells and getting your cancer cured is imoral because it kills cancer. Furthermore, it would also be imoral for women to menstrate or even have sex in general! Because having sex kills millions of sperm cells that don't reach the egg cell and menstrating kills many egg cells, and sperm and egg cells are one of the closest organisms to the zygote. Con states that abortion derives zygotes of their potential future as human beings. Firstly, if you plan to abort it, you are not deriving them of their future because they simply don't have one. Secondly, I would like to say that by Con's suggested logic, billions upon billions of sperm and egg cells (which are even closer physiologically to a zygote than an actual human being) are being derived of their potential future as zygotes and then as human beings whenever someone performs regulated sex or just sex in general, and menstration. How is this different from killing a zygote? Furthermore, I would like to inform Con of the possibilities of the zygote's "human life. " Has it ever occured to Con that if the mother did not abort, the mother would possibly neglect and hate her child? If this is the case, it is also possible for the mother to abandon her child, leaving it to live in pain and suffering. Some of these children even end up killing themselves anyway. Wouldn't it be better to prevent the child from feeling all this pain and suffering and killing him/herself in the first place? Of course this is just an assumption, but it is a valid assumption because Con wishes to discuss the future based on his assumptions. ____________________________________________________________________________Addendum:Choice in AbortionI would like to inform Con about the zygote. A zygote is one cell. I've already established that it has no free will or decision making skills, therefore it is not an entity. Being an AP Biology student, I can say with validity that if the zygote hasnt even properly mitosized yet, then it could technically be considered an organ of the woman's body. And if it is part of the woman's body, the woman should have the right of choice, like choosing to get a tattoo or piercing on your own body. Furthermore, the raped woman didn't have a choice to begin with. LegalityRape is considered an illegal crime in most of not all countries[2]. Therefore, the zygote is a product of crime. From this trail of logic, one can conclude that a zygote conceived illegally is illegal. Abortion Reduces Crime, Particularly HomicideA brilliant world-known economist by the name of Steven Levitt discovered this. The graph below is self-explanatory and I will provide a video that explains this in depth. Steven Levitt claimed that because abortion was illegal, many unwanted children were born, and due to traumatic childhoods these unwanted children went through, they grew up to become criminals. If these children were aborted, crime would reduce. As you see in the graph, homicide was at its highest when in the 1990s, when the 14 - 17 year olds were born before the legalization of abortion nationwide in the United States. Homicide Rates reduced dramatically in the early 2000s, when the kids aged 14 - 17 were all wanted and not aborted. Over to Con. _____________________________________________________________________________Sources:1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...3. Video . http://www.youtube.com...