abortion

I would like to apologize for addressing you as a man. Your argument is completely understandable. I am absolutely for women’s rights, and I respect your opinion. However, I do not agree with abortion because the fetus is not part of the woman. It has its own body, and the woman should have no right over the baby’s life. The baby has a right to its own life. Rebuttals:1. Pro believes my definition is incorrect. Pro states: “I think that the definition you wrote is quite incorrect, and I think you purposefully wrote one that would justify your argument. Though, the true definition of murder is ‘the crime of unlawfully killing another living being especially with malice aforethought.’” Ok fine with me. They are the same essentially.2. Pro also states: “see that it says "of a living being" and scientifically, in order to be alive, you must be able to eat, breath, and defecate. A baby that has not yet been born, also known as a fetus, can"t do any of those things, so, it is not technically alive, meaning that, it is not, in any sense, murder.” A fetus is morally equal to a human being. In order it win this debate, I must prove that a fetus is a human being. Pro must prove that it is not. If a fetus is a human being, then it is in fact, murder. Pro said that a fetus is not alive. I believe that it is alive. If it is not alive then what is it? Dead? I think not. If the fetus is not human, then what is it? A fetus is made of human cells, and has human genetics. [1] Therefore, it is human. NARAL (a pro-choice organization) has even confessed that fetuses are human beings.[5] Pro also said that fetuses cannot eat, breathe, or defecate. However, Pro is mistaken. Fetuses eat through their mother’s umbilical cord. Therefore, it can eat. Fetuses can breathe. They do this by practicing breathing amniotic fluid in and out of their developing lungs. [2] While fetuses do not defecate, they can urinate. [3] Now that I have shown that a fetus is in fact human, I now must show how killing a fetus is as morally wrong as killing a fully developed human being. It is considered morally wrong and illegal to murder, in any way, another human being. Abortion kills a fetus. A fetus is a human being. Therefore, abortion is killing another human being. Still don’t believe that abortion is murder? Let’s take the definition you provided: Murder: the crime of unlawfully killing another living being especially with malice aforethought. Well, I’ve determined that aborting a fetus is killing a living human being. Killing another human being is unlawful. However this doesn’t necessarily meet the definition of murder quite yet. Is abortion an aforethought? Well, let’s define aforethought: Aforethought:premeditation; forethought. [4] Is abortion premeditated? Yes it is. Therefore, abortion is in fact murder.3. Pro also states: “If you think that these questions do not matter, and that all that matters to you is your life, than you clearly have not yet matured enough to develop enough empathy to be able to truly understand the decision your mother has to make.” Pro’s argument works the other way. If the mother believes that the only thing that matters is her life, then that is very selfish and self-centered. Selfishness, does not justify murder. Also, a fetus has no such concept of empathy, and like you said, it doesn’t grasp the whole situation. 4. Pro states: “This, as I have established earlier, is incorrect. I repeat, scientifically, in order to be alive, you must be able to eat, breath, and defecate. A fetus cannot do any of those things, thus, it is not technically alive, so it is not murder.” I have already established the fact that a fetus can eat, breathe, and defecate. (See # 2 for ref.) Fetuses are human, with human cells, and genetics. It also meets Pro’s qualifications. An abortion kills a fetus. A fetus is human. Therefore, through the transitive property, abortion is indeed murder. 5. Pro proceeds to say: “the government doesn"t know anything about the mother"s past, present, or future, or what may happen if the baby is born, for all they know, the mother was raped, the mother has a deadly illness, the baby could have a horribly painful life, ending in a painful death, or the mother and the baby could both die if the baby is born.” It is completely immoral, self-serving. Still doesn’t justify murder.6. Pro states: “[…] according to the law, if a mother could die, it apsolutely is a valid exuse.” Exactly where is this written in the law? As I’ve said before, it is completely immoral to take a human being’s life to save your own. The possibility of dying is no excuse for murder. 7. Pro mentioned a story about a woman who aborted one of her twins because it had a hernia. He later states: “If JUDY NICASTRO hadn"t had her abortion, the baby would have had a miserable life that probably would have ended in a painful death, as hard as it was for the mother, she had to make the right decision, to let her baby die in very little to no pain, in a warm and loving place.” Aborting the baby still causes pain. In fact, fetuses begin to feel pain at about 8 weeks. [6] The fetus aborted in Pro’s story was 23 weeks old. You may as well let it live, and give it a chance. Case: I will explain this again; this whole argument is based on whether or not a fetus is in fact living and human. I will proceed to my argument. To begin, Pro seems to disagree with the fact that abortion is murder. This is because she believes that abortion does not fit the definition of murder. She also doesn’t believe that fetuses are alive because they don’t: “eat, breath, and defecate.” I have proven in rebuttal #2 that fetuses can eat, breathe, and defecate. However, although I have proven that they are alive to Pro’s standards, I also need to prove they are alive according to science. Scientists say in order for something to be alive, it has to: “be capable of growth, reproduction and metabolism.” [7] Fetuses are capable of growth. It is growing in the womb. It is capable of reproducing, and has a metabolism [8]. I have further evidence that fetuses are alive (See source number 9). For these reasons, fetuses qualify as being alive. As stated earlier in my rebuttal (See rebuttal #2,) a fetus is the same as a human. It has human cells, human genetics, and a human form. The only difference is that a fetus is under development. I see a connection: aren’t children still developing as well? They are. So why would children be considered human, but fetuses not? Just because something is still developing doesn’t mean it’s not human. I have further proof that fetuses are human: NARAL, a pro-abortion organization has even admitted that a fetus is a human being: “There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the same being as the mother–and is therefore a unified whole.”[5] This came directly from a pro-choice organization. I have shown further evidence that fetuses are human beings. Once again, abortion kills a fetus, a fetus is human, and therefore abortion is murder. In instances of rape, put the child up for adoption. There are plenty of people who would adopt a newborn. Couples who want children, but who are unable to have children would gladly take the child and provide it with a happy home. Sources: [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org... [2]: http://www.livestrong.com... [3]: http://www.straightdope.com... [4]: http://dictionary.reference.com... [5]: http://www.abort73.com... [6]: http://www.abortionfacts.com... [7]: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu... [8]: http://www.reproduction-online.org... [9]: http://www.christiananswers.net...