Abortion Ought To Be Illegal

For the sake of space the rebuttals have been numbered 1.) Con's Unrealistic Expectations 2.) Con's False Dilemma 3.)Con's Arbitrary Assertions and Second False Dilemma 4.)Con Prefers "Financial Success" Over The Sacred Right To Life 5.)Con Takes "Financial Success" Over Life Again 6.)A Closing Remark On Con"s Argument 7.)Viability is Not Uniqueness 8.)Con Does Not Recognize the Purpose of My Secondary Point 9.)Con Uses A Straw man Argument 1. & 6.) I have not stated which theory I believe in to maintain objectivity, but it seems to have backfired with accusations of the nirvana fallacy. I personally believe that life exists after birth, not during conception. In addition because pro could not refute the contention (due to lack of information on my part) he declares that it is a nirvana fallacy when I have not explicitly stated nor implied that consensus must be unanimous. If I had done so then he would be correct that it would be a nirvana fallacy, but because I have not implied nor stated that consensus must be unanimous the fallacy accusation is false. Instead I am stating that consensus be the majority instead of a theocratic minority. 2.) ... It seems that my opponent would rather have the rape victim remember the trauma of rape for 9 months and feel the full effects of the unwanted pregnancy, give birth to the rapists child, and then send the child away for adoption. Is this correct? If it is then it is an arbitrary declaration and goes against the 13th amendment if the state enforces your contention. Because noting the traumatic experience the victim will seek an abortion instead of carrying the child. In addition I must ask you to not equivocate my contentions with false dilemmas which is not the truth. 3.) "First of all, it is arbitrary to say that teen mothers cannot handle a child. Secondly, you again present only two choices to the teen mother: Kill it or deal with it. These are not the only choices available, however. There is always adoption." Actually it is the simple truth not an arbitrary declaration. The Frontal lobe (the part of the brain that determines right from wrong) is not fully developed in adolescents (both male and female) until they are in their early 20's. In addition I did not declare nor imply any false dilemmas, so if I were you I would be careful with declaring false accusations and stick with the facts. I never stated the options which you stated, whether a woman wants to abort the fetus is up to her. If she wants to send it off through adoption that is her choice. I do not dictate what goes on in a woman's body nor do I force people to do something against their will. 4. & 5.) My opponent has committed the Fallacy of quoting out of context. I have stated a theoretical situation to show that I would be violating the US constitution if I followed pro's resolution, but my opponent has declared that financial success must be the reason why I support abortion. Completely fallacious. Also in most cases of unwanted teen pregnancies, economic hardships occur as a result of the pregnancy as the teen drops out of high school severely hampering her career opportunities. Also there have been cases where parents revoke any support they had for their child, forcing the teen to fend for herself and the unborn fetus. 7.) An infant can still survive albeit a brief time without the mother. This has been proven in the orphanages, and in human history. This is proven throughout human history as abandoned infants who are lucky to be found are treated for malnutrition, and saved from death. The unfortunate infants on the other hand often die of exposure, or dehydration. A fetus on the other hand can not survive without the mother. The fetus is not plagued by the same things as the fetus is completely dependent on the mother's health habits. If the mother experienced stress from abuses, then the fetus receives inadequate nutrition from the placenta placing the fetus at risk. This is due to the fact that fear and mental trauma fluctuates blood pressure. 8.) It seems that my opponent has misinterpreted the Equal Protection Clause as he claims that it would include an UNBORN child. When the Amendment clearly refers to Citizens Born or naturalized in the US. If a fetus is born then please correct me.The 9th amendment states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The 9th amendment states how the Constitution should be read as well as deferring rights to the people. So my opponent's misinterpretation of the equal liberties clause is understandable since most people skip right over most of the text instead zeroing in on retained by the people. 9.) I refute your contention that my rebuttal is a straw man argument as modern medicine has advanced to the point where a mother's or child's life is often not at risk which would basically abolish abortion if your resolution passed politically. This is because we have the technology to treat cleft palates, and other physical defects. The only time abortion would be needed is when the child is still born or is afflicted with diseases similar to Tay-Sachs disease which has no known cure. However, Tay-Sachs disease is often reduced or prevented through in vitro fertilization or prenatal diagnosis. Therefore your contention is exactly what I have stated without its eloquence. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.edinformatics.com... http://www.buzzle.com...