Abortion Should be illegal

In R1 Con referred to moral obligations w/out clarifying whether these should translate into legal obligations. I had no way of knowing rather these were his personal morals or morals to be imposed on society. That was my objection. Con then decided to strawman the protest and frame it as though I was arguing that the current law should be the only thing considered in this debate. Brain Activity (neuron"s communicating) begins at 6-7 weeks: Allows for fetal movement. So even if Con"s argument for Personhood based off "brain activity" was justified (which it is not) he gives unborn rights around 6-7 weeks. I wonder if Con holds this view? Con basis the argument of personhood from brain activity b/c it is a precursor to consciousness. Neurologically, A 1-day old newborn lacks the synapses or connections necessary for critical thinking. At that time, The brain is at a remarkably unfinished state. Most neurons are not yet connected. And the connections that have been made are very simple and only translate into primitive responses and survival instincts. However, We have found that pigs are more intelligent the previously thought. They have similar complex ethological traits (cognition, Emotion and behavior) as chimpanzees and dogs. This would suggest with great certainty that adult pigs are superior in consciousness (his definition: ability to think and awareness of self) to newborns. Con has already labeled Pigs as non-conscious organisms so therefore we can say w/ certainty that 1-day old newborns have no consciousness. Meaning that these newborns are not persons under Con"s definition, And they have no rights. A mother is never building the embryo. A mother is simply supplying nutrients for the for the organism to build itself. This is first coordinated by its DNA. I have already shown how inconsistent Con has been in defining personhood. My definition: An organism must exhibit or have the potential to exhibit symbolic abstract thinking [Ability to think about abstract objects, Principles, And ideas] or higher consciousness [self-reflective awareness including self-monitoring, Self-recognition and self-identification] in order to have value or "human life. " Notice again how Con strawman"s my definition. He replaces organism with nonspecific "they" so that his objections work. This is a clear and unmistakable strawman. Sperm/Eggs are parts of organisms not organisms within themselves like a fertilized egg. This is an extremely crucial distinction in biology. For my opponent to contest this point is nonsensical. His intermediate step approach fails as well. Before fertilization there are two parts of separate organisms. After fertilization there is a new organism. Throughout pregnancy it is the same organism. At Brain death the organism no longer has potential so it is no longer a person under my definition. I"m sure the judges can see that Con has again failed to show inconsistencies in my definition of personhood. I never said that human DNA is the only precursor to consciousness. But it certainly is a precursor to consciousness. By looking at the genetics of a human embryo, A scientist can see that the organism has the potential for consciousness. There may be other organisms with the potential for consciousness (Aliens). If that is the case, Then they too would be granted personhood and rights according to my definition. You have no attachment to your body? Most humans are attached both to their bodies and their minds. The two are intimately connected and are complimentary in their process. I obviously hold the mind in a higher regard than the body, But I like most people respect and cherish both. Perhaps you need to take a break from debating online and experience our natural side. It"s as if you view yourself and other humans as robots and see everything organic as unimportant. This is not a healthy way to view the world. I have shown that when Con attempts to define consciousness (which is at the root of his personhood definition) he either casts to wide of a net and includes pigs or too narrow and excludes newborns. He then must resort to basing it off potential or must appeal to our ignorance of subject. The first would cede that my definition based of potential is correct. The second would be valueless because it is based off our ignorance. Pain from not breastfeeding does not occur in every female and similar or worse pains can occur because a female breastfeeds, So you point fails. It is certainly nothing like urinating. If a woman does not breastfeed her glands dry up. It"s nothing necessary like urinating (which would not fall under my natural care principle anyway). Also breastfeeding prevents ovulation so forced breastfeeding would take away woman"s control of her reproductive cycle. You say the comparison is laughable but give no good reason why. I"ve already shown that degree does not seem to matter. You can make an observation about women"s feelings, But it doesn"t change reality. It doesn"t strengthen your argument. You"re simply wasting characters. My argument does not work without my principles. This is just confirmation that Con never seriously tried to understand it. Feel free to export them to other moral scenarios. You claimed there were 100"s with terrible consequences but I"m still waiting and it"s R3. Are men second class citizens because they may be drafted? Because the courts favor women in custody court? No. Just because the laws apply differently to men and women based off their biological differences doesn"t mean either is a second-class citizen. I view pregnancy as an act of care so in the case of a forced surrogacy my principles of care would not apply. Therefore, The woman could induce labor at any time and would not be guilty of negligent homicide if the unborn was not viable outside of her womb. She would be guilty if she intentionally dismembered the fetus. Begone Thoht -Analogizer Sources in the comments