is abortion ok

It is important to note that the true question here is are the unborn human because if they are not then they don't get human rights and abortion should be legal, but if they are human then they deserve the human right to life like every other human. I will address the first two points at the end. First I will address Reason rebutted 3 that abortion is unconstitutional. Well I would like to point out that the phrase "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" isn't in the Constitution but rather it is in the Declaration of Independence [1], so this isn't even a valid reason to rebuttal. Further, the issue of violating law was brought up in reason rebutted 2 about murder. Now to reason rebutted 4, abortion is not ok because it is against the bible. My opponent claims the bible doesn't talk about abortion. Although, the bible does not use the word abortion, but it does address our fundamental question "are the unborn human? " and it makes it clear in Exodus 21:22-23 where it states "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life," NIV [2]. There is also a reference to the unborn in Psalm 139:16 where it talks about seeing an unformed body. However, not all people are Christians, and I would like to present a secular case. "Reason rebutted 5. Adoption is a thing". My opponent claims adoption is bad because it could be mentally scaring. True, it could be, but it also could be a creative situation too instead of a destructive. At least adoption offers a chance for the person to have a life, while abortion will make sure there is no chance for them. To address the orphanage issue "In 2002, there were 18.5 million women ages 18-44 who had ever considered adoption. This number amounted to approximately one-third (33.1 percent) of all American women. .. " [3], so there is certainly enough people out there considering adoption to adopt all the children. The next reason rebutted is 6 that we need to protect the innocent. This is only true if the unborn are human, so this will bring us back to our base question "are the unborn human? "Reason rebutted 1 Life begins at conception. First, my opponent claims since the early life can't survive outside of the womb makes in not a life. survive means "continue to live or exist, especially in spite of danger or hardship. " [7], and using the word survive implies it is a life. I also would like to point out that by definition "an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense" [4] is a parasite, and all parasites won't survive outside of the host, but that doesn't make them any less living. Second, my opponent challenges the unborns' qualifications of Homeostasis and reproduction. It is important to define homeostasis "The tendency of an organism or a cell to regulate its internal conditions, usually by a system of feedback controls, so as to stabilize health and functioning, regardless of the outside changing conditions" [5]. The unborn will try to achieve internal balance but it might be unstable, but the process of stabilization is homeostasis which is there just like it is in each of the living cells that make up the unborn. Also, I would like to note that my opponent does say the unborn in the womb could have unstable vital signs, and it is important to not vital signs are signs of life [6] which would be impossible if it were not living. Second, reproduction was also an issue. There must be an understanding that Humans cannot reproduce until sexual maturity which is known as puberty. The way my opponent applies reproduction then no person can be considered living until puberty because a three year old can't reproduce. However, when properly applied reproduction means it will eventually be able to reproduce asexually or sexually in it life time. With this proper understanding of what life it we can conclude that the unborn are living. Reason rebutted 2 that abortion is murder. To be murdered the unborn must first be alive, which was confirmed in the last paragraph, and must be human which is what I will cover here. A zygote which is a fertilized egg "contains all of the genetic information (DNA) needed to become a baby" [8]. Undoubtedly this DNA is human DNA since it's initial components are two sets of human DNA, one from the mother and the other from the father. Since the unborn is living and contains human DNA, we must therefore conclude that the unborn are indeed living humans and deserve human rights, and denying the human right to life is murder. Now to refute arguments for abortion that were presented. Argument 1 is rape. Rape is indeed a terrible thing and the perpetrators should be severely punished, but is it right to give the death penalty the unborn for the crime of one of their parents? No, we should not deny the unborn their human rights. Let me ask this question should we allow the parent of a born human who was conceived in rape to kill their born child? Argument 2. Fetal stem cells can be use for medical purposes. This is a rather repulsive argument since the extraction of fetal stem cells results in the death of the fetus. This is basically killing to harvest human parts. There are such things as Adult stem cells which don't require death for extraction. Argument 3 Abortion should be allowed for low quality of life. First, if the parents could not afford a child they should not have taken actions that resulted in a child. Second, should parents be able to kill their born children because they can not afford to take care of them? Argument 4 abortion could save the life of the parent. Medical technology has come a far way and giving birth is now relatively very safe. It also important to note that abortion is the intentional termination of the pregnancy. If a problem arises such as a cancerous uterus then actions should be taken to eliminate the medical problem and if it results in the death of the unborn then it is tragic, but it is not an abortion. Argument 5 Kids should be aborted if they have a disease that causes a painful death. This is another quality of life issue, but should parents be allowed to kill their born children because they develop a disease that could lead to a painful death? I hope my opponent will answer all questioned I posed, and I wish them good luck in the debate. Sources[1] . http://www.archives.gov...[2] . http://www.biblegateway.com...[3] . https://www.childwelfare.gov...[4] . http://dictionary.reference.com...[5] . http://www.biology-online.org...[6] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[7] . http://dictionary.reference.com...[8] . http://www.nlm.nih.gov...