abortion, responsibility, and analogies

Just to clarify, I will be arguing for abortion, and my opponent will be arguing against abortion. It's funny that you should mention Thomson because her arguments were for abortion, hence why there might have been some confusion. But I'll address that later. One of the main issues regarding abortion is whether the fetus has a right to life. Opponents equate killing a fetus to murder and saying that is no better than killing a human. But consider this situation. You have to choose between killing a fetus and killing a child. It is ridiculous to even consider killing the child, and therefore we cannot say that a fetus equals a human being. There are several underlying reasons why killing a child is much worse than killing a fetus. Unless you're a psychopath, I would assume that you would not want to kill a child. However, a mother who doesn't want a baby does want to kill their fetus and has much to gain from it, namely the risks and pain that comes with pregnancy. Of course, simply desire alone would not justify killing someone. For example, I can't just kill off people that I don't like. However, we must keep in mind that a mother has a right to their own body. If one day I woke up with tadpoles growing out of my back, isn't it my right to decide what to do with my body, even if removing the tadpoles would kill them? Some critics may point out that tadpoles are not the same as humans. But if we look at it from the fetus perspective, there is not much of an argument to be made. When the egg is first fertilized, it is simply a clump of cells that keeps dividing. I could say that removing a fetus is like removing a wart: it is something on my body that I don't want and didn't mean to have. Now this clump of cells is not what pro-life activists like to say, "a living breathing human being". Only in the late third trimester would the fetus even come close to looking human. At the embryo stage, it is difficult to distinguish a human from a chicken or a fish or a reptile. Furthermore, the fetus is not conscious of its own being within the womb. When it is in utero, it is similar to being in a deep sleep, only that they have nothing to dream about and nothing to experience. If anything, the tadpoles would be more "human" than a fetus. The fetus experiences nothing and is not self-aware; it simply exists. Is this what we could consider "life"? How can you kill something that hasn't lived? . http://www.scientificamerican.com...Now I'll respond to some of the analogies my opponent has made. The Car AccidentIf I were to get in an accident with someone, in no way would I be responsible for providing blood and kidneys for them. Yes, they are entitled to legal compensation and I should serve punishment for my actions, but they are not entitled to my body. We have moved past the notion of "an eye for an eye" because it is simply inhumane. If I killed their child, should they have the right to mine? Obviously this is a horrible thing to say but this simply illustrates the flaw in the argument. The BurglarFrankly, I'm not sure what you're arguing here. It seems that you are supporting abortion when you say that a mother's liberty shouldn't be hindered by the fetus, and I completely agree with you. The Plane AccidentThis really isn't that applicable to abortion and you seem to be implying responsibility when you say that they caused the accident. Here is what I'm getting from your argument, but please clarify if I'm wrong. Person A (mother) causes Person B (fetus) to stay at their island (uterus). Person A should not be able to kick Person B out. However, this is what I consider to be a more accurate depiction of abortion. Person A (lover/rapist/etc. ) cause Person B (mother) to have Person C (fetus). Person B does not want Person C. Person B has the right to get rid of Person C. In situations such as rape or failed contraceptives, the mother has no fault for getting pregnant. Therefore, she should not be stuck with something she doesn't want growing inside of her. And a child should not be forced to have parents that don't want him. The Kidney Dialysis MachineAgain, this analogy is more for abortion. Yes, in this case, you would be entitled to kill the person. The original analogy isn't that you "caused the accident" but that you woke up one day with this violinist attached to your kidneys. Although they have a right to live, that should not infringe on your right to your own body. If you condone this situation, are you saying that people should be forced to give organ transplants? Or that people should be forced to give sperm or eggs because not doing so would deny someone the right to life? The fact is, your own body is your own decision of what you want to do with it and no one has the right to take that away from you. I look forward to your arguments next round.