Abortion Should Remain Legal

"How does that statement make sense if you said before hat the laws could be changed? " Laws do not make ethics, ethics lead to the development of laws. "And I'm pretty sure that abortion is legal for any reason before the third trimester, that's why it is called the woman's right to privacy. " It's only legal because of the ethical consideration of privacy (all persons', not just women's) outweighing the consideration of life where life is indeterminate. If there is no burden on privacy, then the consideration of life prevails. "But even if it has restrictions in some states or more restrictions are made, then those laws could be changed, as you said. " No. These are restrictions derived from the Constitution. States can not pass just any laws; they pass those laws that comply with the State and Federal Constitutions. You would need to amend the constitution to change the laws permanently for your side. Even then, I would argue that such a change is unethical, because it encourages possible harm where needless. "That analogy fails when it gets to the 7th word. A cat is a living thing, not a fetus. " My opponent fails to understand the meta-ethical argument. I could have just as well have said ‘baby' rather than cat, but I didn't want to seem horrifically callous. The fetus is the possibility inherent in the box, NOT the cat. The fetus may be something we would have an ethical obligation not to harm, or it may not. So long as an ethical obligation to prevent harm clearly exists for the person "holding the box" (pregnant), the indeterminacy of our obligation to the box's potential allows its sacrifice for the benefit of the person holding it. When there is no longer a compelling reason (potential harm) for sacrificing the box, the possibility that we may not meet our ethical obligations outweighs any personal desire to dunk the box. "… why should you let them go through a pain-filled life and end it with more pain, instead of just save them from all of that with an abortion? " A better question would be, what moral or ethical consideration did the mother have for bringing two more children into the world considering the difficulties she knew she would encounter with the first? At some point, personal responsibility matters more than one's ability to correct mistakes. "The only problem with stem cells hat that article mentions is that some people think it's unethical. It is not unethical, because a fetus is not a living thing…" Entirely false … it is a living thing, just as your organs are. The question is whether or not it is a human life, subject to protection as a citizen, not whether or not it lives. The possibility that it could be life, despite your definition, is why the fetus deserves ethical consideration. If I handed you a box and a gun, told you that there could be a baby in the box, and then told you to shoot the box, would you? No (I hope), because the possibility that there is a human life within keeps you from pulling the trigger. "It may not be a surprise, but a lot of people aren't going to be testing for pregnancy or taking pills right after they have sex…The woman might not even remember having sex, she could have been tired, a little drunk, or both. " These are excellent arguments for personal responsibility. Why would the woman risk being put in a ‘dunk the box' situation, when she can prevent that situation from ever occurring? "True, people draw the line at different places, but is eating meat illegal? " No, but meat isn't made of people either. The vegetarian line-drawing was analogous to your saying that the fetus is/is not a human life. If it is, then you are taking a human life. That is not a choice you can just make, because human life is protected within society. "You don't need statistic to know the obvious. Of course there are many people in the U. S. and the world that can't even pay to feed themselves. You know what what happen if abortion were made illegal? The population would grow. " This is an excellent rationale for either greater responsibility in sexual practices or forced sterilization. It is not a good rationale for an indefinite right to abortion. "? What re you talking about? I said pregnancy and labor, not just labor pains. And to have the child taken away would mean the woman would have to endure both, what you said doesn't make sense. " If the woman believes that what qualifies her as a mother is only that she bears the child, then she does not deserve the child. A mother is a parent. A parent has duties and responsibilities that come with a child. If the woman is unwilling to be a parent, then she should not act as the mother. The child's welfare outweighs the mother's sense of entitlement. That is why we have social services. "… the thing is, a fetus if NOT a human. Read this web page, it'll help you understand: . http://www.capitalism.org...; Read this website: . http://www.catholiceducation.org... No this one: . http://www.associatedcontent.com... No, wait: . http://www.enquirer.com... I think it is much more likely, as I have argued, that a fetus is indeterminate. You don't know that the fetus isn't a person. I don't know that it is. So long as it may be, it deserves consideration. If it didn't, people wouldn't debate it. "I never accused you of being in love with rape, I just said you were okay with women having to endure the after-effects of it (pregnancy, labor, caring for the child, the child as a permanent reminder of the incident. )" Nope, I said that the child could be either (a) given up for adoption or (b) incubated independently in the future. "ABORTION IS NOT MURDER. " No, it's POSSIBLY murder. One should not risk the possibility, however, if there is no need to mitigate obvious harm. "Even if we had alternative ways to terminate a pregnancy without the standard abortion procedure, it would still be an abortion, because it 'aborts' the fetus. " No, it wouldn't. I'm arguing independent incubation. The fetus lives and develops into a human outside the mother. "Until the third trimester, yes. " Because of the option I presented above, no, not indefinitely. "Pro-choice doesn't mean every action should have a choice, it only refers to abortion. " I am pro-choice in that sense, but I am also pro-responsibility, and pro-life if the choice is no longer ethically relevant. Removing the woman from harm removes that relevance. "Incubation is a simulation of the body keeping the baby alive, since a fetus is a woman's property until it can survive on it's own, a woman can choose between incubation of abortion. " See, there we go. That's the real crux of my opponent's argument. The fetus is not the woman's "property. " That is not where the right to have an abortion springs from. The fetus is maybe a human, the development of which could harm a definite human. That's why abortions are ethically valid now. If its development did not threaten harm, there would be no ethical reason to abort. It would be like shooting/dunking the box. Honestly, the atheist argument that a fetus is absolutely not a human life is as invalid as the Christian's argument that it absolutely is. We have no reference point to be sure of the truth of such a statement. Therefore, we must determine our ethics based upon a weighing of the ramifications of such statements assuming they could be true or false, which I have done and my opponent has failed to do. Please, vote Con. In order to bring us a step closer to a Libertarian society, and to protect all people, and all living beings that may be deserving of the rights of people, from the caprice of others' irrationality, abortion must be recognized as a right only so long as it protects against a harm.