Abortion Should Remain Legal

Before I begin Round 3 I would like to quickly respond to Con’s defensive tactics in the previous round. In the evidence you gave about the 14the amendment you said “All persons born or naturalized (naturalized means toconferupontherightsandprivilegesofacitizen) in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty,or property (later changed to the pursuit of happiness), without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” I thank you for reiterating my point, but still your argument is unclear. Based off of the 14the Amendment, our citizens (women) have the simple right to do as they please with their body (including giving birth). This brings me to another point, your scientific definition of life. Again, I disagree with your argument in a way that is best illustrated through an article on http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org.... “If you point out that a fetus consists of human tissue and DNA, anti-choicers triumphantly claim you just conceded it's a human being. Now, a flake of dandruff from my head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense, neither is a zygote. Anti-choicers will respond that a fertilized egg is not like dandruff, because the fertilized egg consists of a unique set of chromosomes that makes it a separate human being. But with cloning, a cell from my dandruff is enough to create a new human being. Although it would have my identical genetic make-up, it would still be a unique individual, and because human beings are much more than our genes Also, both a fertilized egg and a cloned cell represent a potential, not an actual human being. It’s a worn cliché, but it bears repeating—an acorn isn’t an oak tree and the egg you had for breakfast isn’t a chicken.” Need I say more? My opponent’s argument is very poorly put together, and he is using a weak debate strategy in which he disagrees with my points yet fails to provide any concrete ideas of his own. Finally I would like to answer the question that he asked me at the end of Round 2. (Although it was probably a rhetorical question) Nobody should control anyone else’s life, but since a fetus is not life (it is more of an opportunity for life) I am more concerned with the mother’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Round 3: Is abortion morally correct? Like I said countless times before, abortion is not murder. Yet my own personal beliefs regarding abortion are much different than whether or not I feel that it should be legal. It should be legal because neither my, nor my opponent’s opinion is worthy of controlling another woman’s life. When it comes to someone’s health, it is only their opinion that should matter. Now we face a new question, when is abortion okay? Is it okay to abort a baby when there is incest involved? If you answer is yes, but you do not support abortions then your logic is flawed. Because a baby who is a product of incest (no matter how deformed or unstable they will be) is still a child worth being born (according to the logic of my opponent). Is it okay to abort a baby when the mother’s life is threatened? If you answer is yes, (like my opponent did in Round 1) but you do not support abortions then your logic is flawed. Because according to my opponent, the zygote (before third trimester) is just as valuable as the living, breathing mother. But since a woman had “sex, then she, without a doubt, has the responsibility to give birth to the child, no matter the pain or discomfort caused her.” (Round 1, Con) I would assume that means that my opponent feels that she should die on that operation table with her stillborn child. Is it okay to abort a baby when there is rape involved? If you answer is yes, but you do not support abortions then your logic is flawed. My opponent stated in Round 1 that he believes. “If a woman is raped, then I believe she should have the child as well”. There you have it voters... If you, or your daughter, or your mother, or your sister, or your wife, or your girlfriend were raped and possibly tortured by mentally unstable predator… It is beyond her choice, and it is her responsibility to give birth to that child. I believe that my opponent has demonstrated a lack of sympathy, and he is a man that is willing to dictate the welfare of an independent woman because he feels she is not worthy of making her own health decisions.