Abortion

My opponent claims that the termination of a fetus that may or may not be born is the same as murdering an innocent child because it is "human". I would like to first point out that my statement that the two actions are not the same was meant as a statement that the actual actions and situations for each are different and wasn't touching upon the question of whether or not the fetus is "human". To clarify my meaning when I say the abortion and murdering a child is not the same, My opponent also stated that in cases of rape or a condom breaking that it isn't the fetus's fault and as such shouldn't be "punished" for it. However, the choice to abort a child under these situations isn't about the fetus being punished for being created, it's about the woman making a choice for her own body and future. The fetus is a part of her body until after the baby is born, if she keeps child then that child drastically changes her future for at least the next 18 years. A pregnancy caused by rape can be especially traumatizing for the mother but it can also result in major psychological damage towards the child upon being told the truth. In some cases, a mother might grow to despise the child because they become a constant reminder of the rape they experience. Is it the child's fault? Of course not. But it's not the mother's fault she got pregnant. Why should she be punished for being raped? Let's not forget about those in dire financial situations. What are you going to do if a woman becomes pregnant but is not financially stable at all and can barely support herself, let alone a child. Many against abortion would say the woman should put the child up for adoption. Who is going to pay for all the medical bills? The proper medical care necessary to ensure healthy birth can be estimated to be about $30,000. Are the women just supposed to figure that out themselves because they shouldn't be allowed to get an abortion? And again, what happens if the fetus dies after having to go through expensive medical procedures that she didn't even want to go through in the first place? Are those bills going to be forgiven or reimbursed? Of course not. My opponent also brought up legal perspective in response to whether or not it should legally be right to terminate a fetus. I would like to bring up why abortion was deemed legal to begin with. In the case of Roe v. Wade in 1973 it was decided that the right to a person's personal privacy allowed abortion to be legal up until the child's birth was viable. Since this case, abortion has been legal. My opponent believes that the termination of an embryo or fetus which may or may not ever even be born, which was deemed legal by this case, is the same as murdering a born child. Abortion is legal while murder is not. Hence, in the eyes of the law currently, abortion is not murder. Whether or not you believe it should be considered murder, the law currently does not. And so upon this premise was the reason I stated that the two actions could not be compared, not because of the the question of whether or not a fetus is "human" or a "person". The argument of the "right to life" in the case was rejected because of the legal definition of a "person". Which brings me to the point my opponent brought up about why a fetus should not be considered a "person". I'll start from the legal perspective. In the case of Roe v. Wade, it was stated that all the legal instances that define a "person" could only be applied to those already born, and found no way in which they could also be used to apply the definition to an unborn fetus. Since this meant the fetus was not considered a "person", the "right to life" argument was rejected. My opponent mentioned "reason" as a defence for a fetus being a human. I would argue that reason actually would show us how a fetus isn't a human. Do we call a chicken egg a chicken? No, we don't because it isn't yet. Why then should we call an embryo or fetus a human when it isn't a human yet? Do we call sperm or an egg a child? No, because they aren't even combined yet. It's not just about stages of development. Being a clump of cells that will become a human does not make it human. As an embryo and then a fetus, the reason why it takes around nine months to be born is because it is still in the process of becoming a human. It is not human yet, it is a mixture of previous human cells, yes, but it is not, itself, a human yet. In fact, the brain, heart, and spinal cord aren't even developed until around week five. For five weeks, since the brain isn't developed yet, the embryo literally does not know it even exists. It can't feel anything. Bare in mind also that most abortions in the US are performed within the first thirteen weeks. Meaning that's only around eight weeks for the brain to even start initially growing. One more thing I wish to point out has to do with my opponent comparing my statement about 800 women dying during childbirth to the total numbers of abortions performed. Shouting "53 million abortions" in comparison to 800 lives is not really accurate when the 800 lives were just from 2013 alone while the 53 million lives were all from 1973 to 2011. Stating the number of abortions performed in individual years I can understand comparing, but the 800 lives lost was only from childbirth and I'll say again that also "293,000 women died of pregnancy-related causes" in 2013. To try to clear up some number confusion, here's a US pregnancy rate of 2013 summery I pulled from the CDC website: "The estimated number of pregnancies dropped to 6,369,000 (4,131,000 live births, 1,152,000 induced abortions, and 1,087,000 fetal losses)." And according to the information I stated before, 293,800 women in 2013 died of pregnancy-related causes or childbirth. https://www.law.cornell.edu... http://www.whattoexpect.com... http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.newhealthguide.org... http://www.nlm.nih.gov...