Abortion should be illegal

Thank you, Con. IntroductionI would like to begin by apologizing for the incomplete sentence in the first paragraph of my R3 speech. I was attempting to say that the law should not be required to take on responsibilities outside of its domain. The framework of this debate has evolved, so I shall close this round's introduction with a brief recap. What has been established thus far in the debate is that the preborn is indeed a living human being and that there is a moral obligation to sacrifice to preserve innocent life. My claim that this moral obligation is of the highest order has not been rejected. It has also been agreed that the preborn has intrinsic value due to its potential, regardless of whether or not it has achieved personhood. Also, Con has agreed that the modifier I put on my burden of proof is a fair one, adding that protection of the nation's citizens falls within the domain of the responsibilities of the law. I encourage the voter to read the debate through the lens of this framework. Rebuttals On humanity and personhoodCon incorrectly asserts that I dropped his argument regarding personhood. Rather, I did not respond to his "analysis about what distinguishes something that is biologically human from a human being" because it is irrelevant in light of the rebuttal I presented. I can see that Con missed my point, so I shall restate and elaborate upon it. Con presented five criteria for personhood. It may or may not be scientifically accurate to say that the preborn does not meet these criteria. I did not claim that Con's list could not be proven by science, but rather that his list could not be proven by science to be the criteria for personhood. Personhood is a philosophical concept, not a scientific one. As such, any claim that a human being has yet to attain personhood is, by definition, arbitrary. Since it cannot be founded upon scientific fact, it must be founded upon opinion. This opinion is based on nothing more than Con's (and Warren's) own preconceptions of what a person should be. In reality, there is nothing that indicates to us that we should delineate between humans and persons. To say that because the fetus has not yet attained personhood it does not yet have the right to life is simply to tack one arbitrary and baseless assertion onto another. Con goes on to state that my second contention does not apply the preborn due to their alleged lack of personhood. The tagline of my second contention is "There is a moral obligation to preserve innocent human life. " It clearly applies to all biological human life, which Con has admitted that the preborn is. In his R2 speech, Con stated, "We agree on most of Contention 1, and I grant all the arguments about the unborn being life. And I agree with all that's been said about said about it being human as well. Well, almost all. I'm going to create a distinction between something that is biologically human and a human being. " (Emphasis mine. )On the value of the mother in relation to the childAs stated in the first round, the definition for abortion that shall be used in this debate is "a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus. "[1] Delivering the fetus prematurely and working to save the lives of both it and the mother may not be considered an abortion under this definition, and such a course of action is the moral resolution to the problem of ectopic pregnancy. Con dropped my argument that even if we accept that the life of the mother is worth more than the life of the child, it does not follow that she has the right to abort. The ethical dilemma I presented of fetal maiming does not pose a problem to my worldview, but rather to his. I have been arguing throughout this debate that human life is to be valued, period. Con argues that some human life does not have value because it has not yet reached a certain stage. This is where questions of the value of potential enter the debate. Would it be moral to maim a fetus? After all, it is not deserving of rights in Con's worldview. The answer is no, however, because the fetus will one day reach personhood, at which point it will be held back by its injury throughout its life. This illustrates that even in Con's worldview the fetus must be afforded some intrinsic value due to its potential. It is, therefore, Con's worldview that must place value upon the sperm and egg. I would like to close this heading by pointing out that Con did not respond to my R3 argument that the law is not responsible for preventing injury to those who break it. He may not do so now, either, as raising new arguments in the last round is against the rules of debate. This must, therefore, be considered an established point. On victims of rapeI fail to see how I "fell short of a full response," but I will elaborate upon my response in order to satisfy Con. I questioned the validity of Con's source in proving his point. As he admitted, it makes no mention of the mental effect of having an abortion so it is a poor citation at best. Con quotes the line stating that rape "is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. " He seems to be misreading this as saying that rape-related pregnancy results in domestic violence, rather than the obviously correct meaning that rape is frequent in areas and perhaps families where domestic violence is frequent. Let us dwell for a bit on the phrase "unwanted pregnancy. " The study is simply stating that a large number of rapes result in obviously unplanned pregnancy, not that those who become pregnant through rape desired to abort or that access to abortion would lessen their mental trauma. Unless Con can provide a better source for his claim it should be dropped. But regardless, we have already established that there is a moral obligation to preserve innocent human life and that this moral obligation is of the highest order. It is therefore, not permissible for a woman to terminate the life of her child because the pregnancy causes her mental stress. (Keep in mind, also, that we have established that the fetus has some value even if it has not attained "personhood. ") The destruction of innocent life is a greater evil than mental trauma, and even if the law I propose results in such mental trauma, it will still be reducing harm to society by preventing the greater evil of the loss of innocent life. Con conveniently ignored my direct challenge to him to provide an example of another instance in which he believes it is morally permissible to kill someone because they remind one of an unpleasant person or experience. On the fate of the childCon's response to my main point under this heading was largely inadequate. To argue for "the prevention of intense suffering" is one thing, but to argue for the prevention of said suffering by ending the life of someone without their consent is an entirely different matter. Con did not address my claim that, by depriving the preborn of choice and control of its own life, terminating a pregnancy because the preborn has an illness is anti-thetical to everything that the pro-choice movement claims to stand for. Con points out that 5-10% of people diagnosed with Huntington's commit suicide, as if this free will choice on their part justifies ending their life for them. Con doesn't point out that 90-95% do not commit suicide, and therefore prefer living to Con's proposed solution of death without choice. This illustrates what I am trying to say perfectly. The point here is not that this or that disease is not as bad as we think or something to that effect, but that we do not possess the right to end someone else's life for them in the name of preventing suffering. It is entirely the choice of the individual as to whether or not their lot in life is tolerable. The same principle applies to child abuse. And it is even more relevant in this instance because here we have a clear-cut case of "I do not want this child, therefore I will end its life. " The reasoning and justification for the act do not run any deeper than that. The fact that the fetus has value, even if it has not yet attained "personhood," is the perfect rebuttal for this kind of arbitrary killing. Con did not respond to my point that "one could cite the same statistic in support of the right to terminate children who are already born. "I will close this heading by asking Con if he believes it is permissible to have an abortion after the fetus has reached the point of viability in order to prevent the child from suffering from a disease or child abuse. On classismI see, what you are arguing is not that law is unfair but that it will cause economic harm to some families. As I am almost out of characters, I cannot fully respond to this point other than to say that because we have established that there is a moral obligation to sacrifice to preserve innocent life, economic loss does not compare to the destruction of innocent life.