Abortion

===Rebuttals===For this first portion I shall be going over my opponent's opening arguments. My opponent states that we are committing murder in this case, but has yet to actually show how the fetus is a person, we don't even know if it is alive. Here is the actual US legal definition of murder. Murder- the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority... Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. [1]By this own status, abortion cannot be actually classified as murder under the status quo and my opponent's case is negated. We can see in the very legal definition of murder that it must be by a sane person of another. One could argue that the fetus is not indeed sane. It is even stated that abortion is NOT murder under law. Legal authority, in the second portion, comes from the Federal/State government which the mother can have it performed. By US law, abortion, is NOT murder. The evaluation of life, as defined by Biologists, is done by locating Signs or Characteristics all life possess. While no full list is accepted on a universal scale, at least twelve characteristics are generally used in Biology, often in lists of five or seven. They are as followed [2]: Organization: Defined as composing of cells.Genes: To consist of DNA and RNA.Adaption: Changing to match the environment around it.Homeostasis: Maintaining a consistent internal environment.Metabolism: Sometimes called Thermodynamics, it’s the transformation and use of energy.Response: To react to stimuli or to the environment around it.Reproduction: To be able reproduce or bear children.Growth: To grow in size, usually referred to as Cell Growth.Excretion: Removing wasted from the organism’s body.Respiration: The intake of gases needed to live.Feeding: The consumption of resources to live.Movement: The ability to move that even plants have. The Fetus must meet these standards to show that the fetus is indeed alive. If not then the fetus is not alive. My opponent has yet to shown that the fetus meets any of these, showing that the fetus isn't alive. My opponent makes an Appeal to Authority in stating that McCovey made the mistake of causing the case to have its results. My opponent doesn't bring up the sources or even shows how this was the deciding factor. As a result, we have to throw that argument out of the debate. ===Defense of Case===It wouldn't matter if the fetus is male, female, transsexual, alien, or whatever, it's not a living creature nor a person. The Fetus doesn't have the right to life under law nor has my opponent proved they're alive. We can easily say that there are many things in our bodies that are dependent on us. Tapeworms for example. Tapeworms are parasites that live in the digestive track and can kill someone if they aren't killed. Are we to say that we shouldn't get rid of them since they depend on the human [3]? My opponent then moves on to a Red Herring in bringing up the elderly. They meet the quality of life while the fetus does not and the elderly have nearly nothing to do with abortion as eugenics aren't the same. This is also a Strawman by my opponent trying to attack eugenics instead of abortion. Through their argument here out of the debate. This entire 2nd paragraph is a Red Herring. This has nothing to do with abortion. I could easily argue that cops kill innocent blacks and do huge amounts of police burtality. Does this mean that we should abolish our police force? No, this is a terrible argument. Through this argument out of the debate. I'm glad my opponent brings up the coat hanger abortion, as this is actually something, as I previously brought up, happended a great deal when abortion was illegal. If my opponent's side wins out, this will still happen. This argument should be flown over to my side of the debate. As for Planned Parenthood, I could go into how great of a place it is with all of the services it provides and only 3% is abortion [4]. Should we condemn our entire police force when our police brutality percentage against minorities is a lot higher. What's the difference my opponent asks? One is safe (Planned Parenthood) and the other is dangerous and harms everyone in the process which will occur if abortion is outlawed, which is the Yocca abortion example. Here's a better question. Which is more Pro-Life? Saving the fetus or letting it kill the mother in the birthing process where the fetus might not even life in the circumstance. If Abortion is outlawed, then you are condemning the 5.6% who die would would rather get a life saving abortion [5]. Sources1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. www.biologyjunction.com/chapteroutlines_final.doc 3. (http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (http://tinyurl.com...) 5. (http://tinyurl.com...)