Abortion

**Don't confuse me with my argument. I'm the author of the words without asterisks, not the narrating character. I don't know the right answer; if I did then I wouldn't be here.“You don't know who it will be, [...], you are not in [their] shoes and you never will be[.]” Not only is this is an appeal to emotion, its also delightfully fitting when applied to the aborted rather than the aborting. In this educated society pro speaks of, where “things aren’t black and white,” is the Roe’s interpretation of the constitution excluded from that rule? Also, since I “cant have access to both argument[s]” and I need to “make a choice,” should I choose black or white? “[T]he question posed today is not whether you like abortion, but whether you think people should be able to make those kinds of choices for themselves.” I think pro has the question wrong. Here: “the question posed today is not whether you like [pretending to be a feminist], but whether you think [innocent human lives] should be [protected].” How persuasive. I say “pretending to be a feminist” because, well, I’ll tell a story: Rose Ucks loves to say “my body my choice.” She yells it when she makes her choice to open her legs and allow yet another condomless dick in. Of course, Rose Ucks eventually gets her eggo preggo. Happy to have an excuse, she says “I’m eatin’ for two” when she rolls up to the drive-thru for her 30$ order at McDonalds. For 7 months, Rose Ucks does this every day and then smokes a pack of cigarettes and drinks a 6 pack of PBR’s. When people ask “don’t you have a second life to worry about?” and she screams “my body my choice!” One day she has to pee. She looks down at her stomach and says “why you gotta be sittin on my bladder like that? Ain’t nobody got time for you!” Rose Ucks pulls up to the clinic and, with her obamacare card in hand, she fist bumps her “my body my choice” bumper sticker on the way in. An hour later, she walks out 7 pounds lighter and more entitled by her choice to end the life of a member of the human species—that is, a human being—because she couldn’t handle the consequences of her first choice and, as a woman, she’s allowed to opt out of the consequences. To celebrate, Rose Ucks heads straight for the losers trailer and yells “my body my choice” as she opens her legs, and feels empowered by her choice to allow yet another condomless dick in. The story should demonstrate the irony of the "feminism" played by my opponent. Unfortunately, pro is trying to play chess with a tic-tac-toe strategy. A real feminist would say “my body my choice” and, if she doesn’t want an accident, she would tell him to use his mouth or get lost. A faux feminist uses the “my body my choice” at her convenience, but is unwilling to be responsible for her unwillingness to control her body’s urges. “It's easy to say it's "killing babies" -- once you've defined it that way, you don't have to think any more, you can send your brain back out on vacation.” This is pro misrepresenting what I have argued—thus making it easier to attack. How satirical. It’s a shame that pro couldnt come up with a defendable reason for why a human life comprising only of 2 cells is not a person. “If she had bothered to read Roe vs. Wade for herself she would have seen that the 14th amendments is exactly what makes abortion a Connsitiuional right.” Here, Pro regurgitates the way something “is” and, without defense, claims it to be the way something “ought” to be.—a sure fire way to halt any change or advances in solving the problem at hand. In fact I have studied Roe v. Wade once or twice, which is why I have actually used the word “viability” at least once in the earlier rounds. I don’t need a court case with manipulative lawyers as support; I have a dictionary, the constitution, literacy, and critical thinking. My personhood argument stands without having been disproved. “She tries to offer up random websites as sources” Please see Round 3, con, II.B.2. Here, my opponent is asked for a source to some questionable statistics. That source remains unknown. Thus, I have no trust in any source given by pro. “Hypocrisy:Shee literally says the words "is a human" "is not a human".” The above quote from my opponent is a blatant, bold-faced lie. The difference between “is (not) a human” and “is (not) a person” is the difference between “is (not) a whale” and “is (not) a person.” I didn’t think it'd really be necessary to explain this but here I go. Like my opponents separate but applicative arguments (one on Roe, one on the horrible things that are going to happen if abortion isn’t legal, one on Roe, one on sources, one on Roe, etc.), I constructed a separate argument to prepare for a horribly wrong assumption that pro would construct a personhood rebuttal without Roe. But why refute when lies and blind ignorance (like ignoring my question, “if the thing is not human, then what is it?”) can be used? “This is not a slippery slope because I do have evidence to back this thus it cannot be a slippery [s]lop[e] because it isn’t even a logical argument it is a factual argument” Since it seems Pro understands neither “slippery slope,” nor “false cause,” my friend will demonstrate with an easier to follow, cut and paste-type factual argument that will support the con side: “According to The Guttmacher Institute, the state of New Jersey—one of the nine states with no restrictions on abortions [3]—has an abortion rate more than 11% higher than the average for the United States [1] OK so where there are more allowances for abortions there is less pressure to practice safe sex and because of that, more innocent human lives are lost and the Us’s economy is crashing and more people prolly have STD’s too OK so we must make it a crime so the baby killers can either be punished by carrying the baby or punished by god almighty himself when they get a back alley abortion and die like they’re all gonna do cuz they don’t know how to make any right choices for themselves. Your argument’s wrong and easy and stupid and I know the right answer 100% cuz I knows everything by readin stuff on the interwebs. LITERALLY. OK so ROE ROE ROE YOUR BOAT GENTLY OFF A CLIF DUDE. ” Okay, so I would like to ask the readers to dismiss the above paragraph for at least two reasons. One being that a slippery slope relies on the future, which is unknown and can be predicted in an infinite number of ways. The other is that there correlation is Not Cause And Effect. Another game: cause of the effect or strong correlation? Marriage and divorce Ice cream and violence Ok, lets check our answers. Marriage is always the cause of divorce because without marriage, divorce is inconceivable. The same goes for life and death. When Ice cream purchases spike in the heat of summer, and violence spikes in the heat of summer, it does not mean ice cream causes violence. The only absolute cause of all elective abortions (including the emotional visualization of alley aborts that pro regurgitated from the retired, 80 year old, Dr. Waldo L. Fielding [2]) is irresponsible pregnancies. “Back ally abortions causing more deaths because more woman would die and if you are considering them human so would babies.” I don’t care. I will not let emotions bond me to close-minded illiteracy of ethical issues. Unless my money is involved. But then it’s an economic issue. Yes, I agree, women are human. They’re not frogs. Pretty sure they’ll never be frogs. Pretty sure they were human from the start. I mean, unless humans are inbreeding now. Is that a thing these days? I mean, I’ve never seen two humans make a frog. Must be a thing in some places if the Thing that my opponent is talking about is not human. I wonder how many chromosomes it would have…could it be the same as you and me? No. Then it would be human life. But apparently Roe says, “they are not human.” So he must have been into inbreeding. Or maybe aliens. Yeah. Aliens. In this debate, my opponent has proposed that we shoulder the burden of women’s consequences and keep them safe; that we try to help the careless of humankind, though unwilling to help themselves; that we allow people’s actions and try to remove reaction; that we do not trust in humankind’s ability to make the best decision for themselves; that we do this even if it means that some human life, unable to help themselves, is released from existence. In this debate, I have proposed that we shoulder the burden of allowing women’s consequences and adopt tough love; that we try to help the innocent of humankind, though unable to help themselves; that we allow people’s actions and try to require a reaction; that we do trust in humankind’s ability to make the best decision for themselves; that we do this even if it means that some human life, unwilling to help themselves, is released from existence. We the people of the United States of America have the right to Pursue Happiness. We the people of the United States of America do not have the right to Happiness. [1] http://www.guttmacher.org... [2] http://www.nytimes.com... [3] http://www.nytimes.com...[everything else] Alyfish126, a junior philosophy & political science major (with a focus on ethics) **Thank you guys so much if you critically read all of the way through this debate, I hope everyone learned at least one thing from it. Thank you to KatieKat99, not only for hosting the debate, but also for teaching me to bring in more solid, professional quotations as backup and for showing me a new perspective. **Shortly, I will be creating a debate on the same topic, arguing the opposite position. I would like to invite KatieKat99 to argue from the other side. Just to spread the awareness of the complexity of this problem so that someone, someday, will find the perfect solution. If anybody else would like to debate the subject, shoot me a message and perhaps we could set up teams.