Abortion

"the Canadian baby on life support. If you read his reference carefully you'll notice that the baby is a baby not a fetus, that it is in a vegetative state that it will not recover from, and the only question left to be decided is whether it will die at home, at his father's convenience, or in a hospital, which will save money that can be spent on saving the lives of babies who aren't terminal." In the second paragraph I am not debating rather the Canadian baby is a fetus or not. And again, the Latin word fetus literally means "offspring" or "hatching of young". (1) Also, most of the time, when a procedure is done in a hospital, the hospital is paid for their time and the doctor for his skills. I also would like to point out that while Tigg13 pointed out that I chose sources that are either pro-life or Conservative Christian, he gave no details, nor did he point out which sources were pro-life and which ones actually "don't support his position." – meaning my position. I would now like to comment on Tigg13's fourth paragraph in which he states, "Con then goes on to quote Cathy Sparks, John Ankerburg, and Gregg Jackson, and – big surprise – they all think that abortion is bad and that people who provide abortions are even worse. They tell us that abortion providers are evil and deceptive people who want to force everyone to have abortions whether they want one or not. What they don't mention, though, is, if this much unethical behavior was going on, why aren't there hundreds of lawsuits being filed daily against these people. This is the problem with anecdotal evidence – it rarely resembles reality." It's interesting he would make these statements when Kathy Sparks is a former abortionist herself - (2), and John Ankerburg has a long list of accomplishments which would establish any person as a well referenced source - (3). While he may be a Christian, it's hard to find a non-Christian or a Liberal Democrat who will back up pro-life arguments and I assume that a person fitting that description would constitute a reputable source for my opponent. Gregg Jackson is a well established author and with little research on Gregg Jackson, you will find he is a Conservative and obviously this is what my opponent did and is now just using that as ammunition. "why aren't there hundreds of lawsuits being filed daily against these people." This is an example of the lack of attention by my opponent. Other than the grammatical errors of his post, if these women were lying as good as they claim, why would there be lawsuits? A young mother would have no reason to file a lawsuit against someone who helped them...would they? My opponent's arguments about Fitzsimmons are literally baseless. Yes lobbyists lie, but that doesn't argue what he lied about. And this man was the Director of Government Relations for the National Abortion Rights Action League from 1982 to 1985, and the Executive Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (NCAP) from its founding in 1990 until 2004. In 1993, he was named one of the top 50 "Hired Guns" on Capitol Hill by Washingtonian magazine. - (4) So I personally believe that he would be a reputable source when talking about abortion. I won't address my opponents closing arguments as it is opinion and my entire argument goes against it. My "anonymous source from Princeton" is actually multiple sources and behind every statement, there is a name and date. - (5) "In some places euthanasia, crimes of passion, seppuku and even stoning family members for adultery are not considered to be murder. Acts of war and capital punishment aren't even considered to be crimes." Is my opponent suggesting that we result to the way of life in the Middle East and punish people accordingly? Obviously, comparing abortion and stoning a woman to death would be a dangerous comparison. "Fewer than 0.3% of abortions have complications that lead to hospitalization and abortions pose virtually no long term risks to the women who have them." This is not the argument at all. Providing the fact that women are not at much risk when aborting a fetus does not argue my case. "And the problem here is that there is no biological or scientific definition for what makes a person a person." This is odd. I believe we could all agree a person, becomes a person, when life begins. "The "less than 1%" of abortions due to rape that Con mentioned represent 14000 instances of rape that led to an unwanted pregnancy." As I did not mention a date, I find it hard to believe that my opponent would have a reputable counter-fact. And if I use 1972 and 73, which my opponent proposed, I come up with a number much less than 14000. I come up with under 6,000. "Informed consent, in general, is the law in all 50 states so, by law, all abortion providers must provide patients with complete and accurate information about the procedures they provide. 32 states have special informed consent laws that deal specifically with abortion most of which provide inaccurate and/or misleading information." Obviously, by the testimonies of the women who have worked at abortionist clinics, which more than just the ones I've posted can easily be found online, accurate information is not provided. Laws say a lot of things. Obviously they are not always followed as my opponent argues for me, "Even when abortion was illegal women still had them. In 1972 (before Roe v Wade) there were 586760 reported abortions and this number rose less than 5% in 1973 (after Roe v Wade)." My opponent agreed that life begins at conception, and then contradicted this in his conclusion. And finally, killing a fetus is only right to those who think its right. But think about the fact that even a pro-choice person, has to use the term "killing a fetus", when we've established that fetus literally means "child". In closing, I'd like to say that my opponent has given very little source for his information, a total of 4 sources, and has rushed through his argument with multiple grammatical errors being evidence of this. He accused me of giving sources that are not reputable and that's about it. He gives no details on this and then uses one of the same sources. I don't believe this opponent did research at all. Other than a few facts he may have "Googled", I think that my opponent simply does not agree with me, but does not hold the desire to prove me wrong. Sources - (1) - http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) - http://www.abortionfacts.com... (also a good source for other statements from former abortionists.) (3) - http://jas.guilddev.com... (4) - http://en.wikipedia.org... (5) - http://www.princeton.edu...