Abortion

I thank Con for a convivial discourse. In this round I will address the definitional framework, rebut Con's points, and defend my own case. DEFINITIONSPlease notice that in Con's initial speech, he states that a cell is "an autonomous self-replicating unit that may exist as a functional independent unit of life." "May" is a term used to indicate possibility. For example, if I were to say "X may be true," than I am saying that it is possible that X is true, but still possible that X is not true. What this semantic analysis underscores is that a cell is not automatically a functionally independent unit of life. So, when Con says "a cell is a living thing" he is not only misunderstanding his own definition, but also misconstruing my point. To reiterate, a cell, or even a group thereof, is not necessarily a lifeform. We cannot say that an embryo is a functionally independent human being, and therefore, we should not give the embryo the same rights as a functionally independent human being. I will address this more later.For right now, we can extend all of the other definitions I offer, which were collectively dropped by Con. REBUTTALSC1Let's take a look at the Polar Bear example more closely. Consider that a cub once born is able to respirate, consume food, and perform all other bodily functions necessary for it's own survival. While it does need it's mother to feed it, it's mother is not performing its own bodily function for it.In humans, "the placenta connects the developing embryo to the uterine wall to allow nutrient uptake, waste elimination, and gas exchange via the mother's blood supply. The umbilical cord is the connecting cord from the embryo or fetus to the placenta." [1] A polar bear cub does not have it's waste disposed of by its mothers blood supply, nor does it reside inside her or use her antibodies to fight infections etc. The cub has its own, functionally independent biological systems.So sure, the cub still needs the mother to nurse it and tend to it, but the cub now has its own independent organs, antibodies, blood supply, and excretory system, etc. separate from his mother.There is also a second way to refute Con's arguments here: "Born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others." [2]Finally, Con drops all of my studies examining fetal viability, we can extend these. They show that the fetus is dependent, and therefore fails to meet the criteria for constituting a functionally independent organism. C2I will provide examples later in this debate--though unless Con has a medical degree, I would be skeptical of his ability to propose viable alternatives to therapeutic abortions. Even places like Ireland, where Catholicism is rampant, permit abortions when the mother's life is imperiled. Basically, if even staunchly anti-abortion regions recognize that therapeutic abortions are occasionally necessary, it seems unlikely that Con will sufficient prove the converse.Now, I laid out a fairly interesting comparison between humane euthanasia and abortion that Con has attempted to reduce into the following zinger: "Why not just give the kid a chance to make it, than just killing them."Let's back up. I am saying that living a life that is likely to be prolonged, cruel, and painful is bad. This logic has been used to justify euthanasia of people who cannot consent for themselves (regardless of their age.) Why can the same logic not apply to abortion? Con's only argument against this is that people can "work to get out of the slums;" he's relying on the American ideal of hard work always paying off. Only 8% of America's bottom fifth advance to the top fifth; "the growth rate of absolute mobility has slowed, as economic growth has slowed to a disappointing level over the last 15 years. The incomes of middle-class and poor families have slowed even more sharply, because a large share of recent economic gains have gone to a small slice of affluent workers." [3] Basically, upward mobility in the United States is an illusion, it is reserved for a small portion of individuals, and for most people, if you were born into a born family, you are apt to remain poor. [4, 5]My argument is not that life is bad, but rather that because it is an grave indignity--and affront to the value of life--to allow someone to live in suffering, we should permit "mercy abortions."Con asks for solid evidence that many adoptions and foster care services fail. Frankly, I don't need to do this. As long as it is possible that a scenario like the one I described could take place, then abortions should be legal in case a scenario akin to it would ever arise.C3Con says: "if you are not ready for a baby, then don't have sex." This basically sums up what I noted last round: "If he wants parents to be responsible for their choices, then they are responsible for the child. Adoption...is a way to say, we cannot cope with our own creation, so we need to hand it off to someone else. Therefore, by Con's logic, any adult who cannot afford to raise a child should not have sex." Basically, Con wants us to regress our society back to the sexually cloistered and repressed dark ages.Moreover, we can turn this on Con's point about adoption. If Con got his way, there would be no adoptions because every parent would raise the children they begot. So, Con is simultaneously for and against adoptions. C4The link is patently invalid. It's from a group designed to advance the pro-life agenda, and it is your ONLY source. Judges can make this evaluation for themselves though. I posted a reply to the link out of thoroughness--and my reply went thoroughly unanswered. Extend my point here--women can knowingly consent to the procedures.MY CASEC1Examples, as promised:Ex. 1: My friend has a heart condition that prevents her from doing a variety of physical activities. Her doctors have told her that she could likely sustain a child up until birth, but that the act of labor would probably kill her.Ex. 2: Regarding ectopic pregnancies, while usually fatal, a small portion of them produce viable fetuses. [6] If a doctor realizes that a pregnancy is ectopic, he faces this dilemma: the pregnancy will very likely kill the mother, but there is a much smaller chance that nothing bad will happen. Ex. 3: This is an actual example where a woman with a breathing disorder was unable to provide oxygen for both herself and her child. Her medical team was unable to boost her oxygen intake, and was forced to abort the child in order to save the mother's life. [7]In all of these examples, the embryo is an imminent and serious threat to the mother's life, justifying a self-defense response in the form of abortion.C2I think Con is fundamentally misunderstanding the example. The example is not a real-life scenario, but rather a hypothetical example used to illustrate a logical principle. Con asks why can't the man be on dialysis, because in the hypothetical, this is not an option. In the example itself, there are ONLY two choices, leave the man and the woman connected, or allow the woman to sever the connection. Can the man feasibly be hooked up to the woman for 19 years just so that he can survive? When does this imposition become too burdensome? Con never responds to the substance of the point.SOURCES1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org...3 - http://www.nytimes.com...4 - http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...5 - http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu...6 - http://en.wikipedia.org...7 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Thank you! Over to Con...