Abortion, (from athiest perspective.)

My opponent now wants to not clarify but qualify his definition of what he meant when he said can that qualification was never made before now my opponent has brought scientist into the "meaning" of the word "can." I will say however that you previously stated that against my "desise list" that their were still many babies being born anyway in fact using abortion as a means to reduce population would be a failure because their are still many babies being born anyway a much better way to reduce population ( not saying that it needs to be reduced) would be to simply "nuke" a country or two. I still hold that every being of the race homo sapiens needs to be given a chance at life and those that cannot handle taking care of a child can still have the child and choose adoption. A sort of legality status is given to you when you are born and a fundamental right to life however if someone kills you that person is punished but someone who isn't yet born is not considered alive I find that extremely odd one is only alive not when his heart starts beating or when the brain starts to have activity. A fetus starts to develop brain function in 28 weeks. My opponent has made several statements that it's barbaric and inhumane for someone to die from war or famine, but isn't it more barbaric and inhumane to kill a baby? Is the objection that it isn't death because the fetus still hasn't developed or hasn't been born? that seems like an argument of time. If I shoot a man in the face then I am guilty of killing him however If I expose him to something that will kill him in exactly 50 years but he dies at 45 did I kill him? I could argue that it was his life choices that killed him and not me. That's basically what you're saying the mother didn't kill a baby because it still wasn't long enough for the baby to be born was the baby not going to become human? was the baby not going to develop a brain? it's not death because their is no longer a baby to be dead? that's just silly. "As for my opponent case about why we have not reached the overpopulation problem yet, by his logic the trillion dollar deficet is not a problem because havent actually auctioned off land to chiniese people yet, or global warming is not a problem yet for us because glaciers still exist. these problems should not just be passed on untill its so late that there consequences begin to hurt us. they need delt with now." I don't believe global warming is a problem statistics show that it has been colder now than in the last ten years and the deficit is a problem because by definition it's a falling value of money it's happened past tense. "you say you are saying 'easy come easy go' to but you still hold all should be given a chance at life. these are not compatible unless you redifined life just now to mean long enough to have your diapers changed. earleir you were arguing for a definition that its deffinitly alive in the woumb an even now you speak of how a biologist would say all life starts at conception. so the unborn children in question are alive an have had there 'chance at life' though it was a short life indeed. If you argue they must hang on to that life longer still than your not arguing 'easy go'" While I am arguing that a baby is definitely alive in a womb you misunderstand the phrase "chance at life" I meant a more philosophical definition if you will. That for someone to have a "chance at life" they are able to experience emotions and have experiences. "If a child dies quickly in the woumb its axiomatic its not barbaric. the brain that allows the child to feel pain is eliminated before the child can feel the pain. a.k.a. painless death. perhaps its barbaric to watch siscors stabed into an nearly born infants skull, but its if its barbaric for the child that experinces it thats important. painless death to endure equalls not barbaric." axiomatic? you are aware that it means self evident or taken for granted or obvious. And the amount of pain you feel is now a measure of barbarism? would it be barbaric for me to kill 20 people slowly? yes would it be barbaric of me to kill 20 different people with two shots too the head? a lack of pain or thereof does mean act is less barbaric. In fact what if I brought in 20 more people and killed them alternatively by slowly killing one of them too death and then quickly shooting the next one in the head. Am I half barbaric because I killed only 10 of them painfully? now what if through all of the killing I had spectators? what would they view me as some guy who just likes to kill people or as a barbarian? "In Conclusion I do not think Con gave any good reasons for an athiest to think a unborn child has a right to life this debate. I conclude that though overpopulation may one day cause events that will solve the overpopulation problem, it is those events we wish to avoid that make us call it a problem in the first place." Wait you're arguing it's bad to kill somebody that still doesn't exist? hmmmmmmmmm. A problem indeed. -Conclusion- While my opponent has made some good arguments he has made a contradiction and has made a mistake in saying that all babies that can die must. He has not made his burden. I have refuted all my opponents arguments and with some final thoughts that the potential of a baby is still good grounds for keeping all of them alive until they have experienced life. The potential of someone whatever they may make either a great discovery which is good or maybe kill many people with which by my opponents logic is needed for reducing population very much ( which it doesn't need reducing because the world still hasn't reached carrying capacity)or nothing at all either way they deserve a chance at life because of this. I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. cordially, HPG http://www.dailytech.com... http://www.globalresearch.ca...