Abortion

Rebuttals "A sperm cell CAN become a future human. Not by itself, but it certainly can.And, like I said, a fetus contributes nothing to society either. Human beings contribute to society, and you've already conceded a fetus is not a human being. How many more times shall you talk in circles?" A sperm cell is only the male reproductive cell, it is not a future human. It can help create one, but is not one by itself. A fetus contributes by becoming a future human! Besides, there are milions of sperm cells. "What's hypocritical is granting a parasite more rights than the woman who's carrying it in her body." Who said we were giving it more rights? Life is the most basic right anyone can think of!"Also, please choose your terminology more carefully in the future; a fetus is not a baby. A fetus is in the developing stages in becoming a baby human being." Fine. But in return you must use your terminology correct too. Definition of "parasite":"An organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment." Dictionary.com. It clearly says ANOTHER SPECIES. "By aborting them, we not only eliminate their future right to choose existence or non-existence, we eliminate their future cognitive ability to even comprehend it is existing. Terminating a fetus is hardly more vile than terminating a fly. Yes, a fly responds to its environment and naturally tries to avoid being smacked, but it cannot fathom its own existence. Everything it does is a reflex. It does not have the brain functionality necessary to realize it is existing. It's not conscious or sentient, and neither is a fetus." Excatly. By doing this, you are eliminating it's purpose to become a human. You are ending the possibility of a new, unique, human being. "Needless to say, I never said that a fetus does have the right to live on the basis that it is a non-human. I trust to audience to recognize when I am being horribly strawmaned [sic?]. Nor did I say it's morally "correct" or "right" or "good" to kill a fetus. But it is morally acceptable. It is definitely not, by contrast, morally apprehensible or wicked. I would argue that the issue of terminating an unwanted pregnancy is amoral (that is, neither morally good nor bad, as it is not an issue of the principles of moral behavior)." You did in fact say that a fetus does not have the right to live on the basis it is non-human. You said about a hundred times that life is a human right and a fetus is not a human. Look what you said here: "A fetus is not a human being, but in the developing stage to become a human being. Again, there is no reason to grant things which are not humans the rights of humans." "Taken from biology.com, "Parasite: An organism that obtains nourishment and shelter on another organism. Parasites can cause harm or disease to their host. They are generally much smaller than their hosts." [1] Where, Con, in this definition (or any other definition in the universe outside of your imagination) does it say a parasite must be of a different species than its host?"Taken from dictionary.com, "An organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment." "The odds of a woman dying during childbirth are about 12 in 100,000. [2] Admittedly quite low, but it does happen. Women should not be forced to play Russian Roulette in this way, despite how low the odds are."So would you rather have 10000 people survive or 1 person? By letting the fetus live, you are gaining countless new humans. " So this study (which occurred in 1980) claims that a fetus is sensitive to pain by about 14 weeks, not 8 weeks. What about abortions that take place before this time? My opponent's argument cannot possibly object to abortions occurring earlier in pregnancy than 13 1/2 weeks." So where is this "study"? You provide no source or details. "It's like when Bill O'Reilly claimed homosexuals should stay in the closet for many reasons, one being that they are treated worse than heterosexuals." I concede that an abortion is less painful than childbirth. "Yeah, highly trusted by pro-life fundies. Members of the audience, I challenge you (nay, DARE you) to look at this website and not laugh at the sentiment of its unbiased and objective outlook on abortion. There is a "Baby Hall of Fame" for god's sake with pictures of babies and little captions that read "I was told the best choice was abortion...they were wrong!" and "The baby's father begged the mom to abort the baby, but she wouldn't"."I dare the audience to look at this site: abortionfacts.com . It is not biased. Also, may the audience realize that two of my opponent's sources are broken links. New argument: It is the mother's niche to bear fetuses. You can't just let go of your role. If trees decided that they did not want to be trees, then the world would be in chaos. SummaryMy opponent's main argument is this:A fetus is not a human.Life is a human right. Therefore, it is amoral to kill a fetus. My rebuttal to it is that a fetus becomes a future human. By aborting them, you are eliminating it's purpose to become a human. You are ending the possibility of a new, unique, human being. A fetus can feel pain too. Also, do notice that my opponent dropped his argument about the fetus moving from pain tests being a reflex. Extend arguments. Sources: http://abortionfacts.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://news.discovery.com... Just hope that my opponent does not go as far as calling dictionary.com and discovery.com "biased".