Abortion

I would like to say that, after a small comment about my opponent’s spelling and grammar, he took the whole thing out of context and wrote a paragraph on it. I was simply pointing out that I feel like my opponent rushed through his arguments, and pointed at multiple spelling and grammatical errors as evidence. It is not possible to “involve” yourself in an argument and debate with an opponent and not pick one side or the other. It seems like that is the point of debating a topic. And one that is as controversial a subject as abortion is, it seems even more unlikely that a person could involve themselves in a debate and not pick one side or the other. My opponent attacked my sources and then turned his stance around and stated, “, so finding a source that isn't biased, or seems to be biased, one way or the other is a very hard thing to do.” Moving on, comparing the definitions of the word “wife” and the word “fetus” is a foolish thing to do. Most people would go on definitions readily available in today’s standards, not definitions from, I’m guessing, centuries ago, as I have not found a definition of the word “wife” that refers to it as a “cook” and my opponent, in usual fashion has not provided a source for this claim. Again, I’m not sure how I have not argued my opponents positions, I have argued his positions word for the word the entire debate. This is one of many attempts my opponent has made to frame the debate for his liking and quite literally make up random unspoken rules like, “And since he has chosen not to rebut my position I cannot see why I should not win by default.” I brought up the story of the Canadian boy simply to give the readers an idea of what brought the issue of abortion to my mind. If you read the paragraph good enough, you would see where the connection is. Obviously I understand that this boy is already born, and I feel that my opponent is trying to make it seem that this is a decent argument when, in fact, it is a baseless attempt to frame the debate. I was not using the story as an argument against abortion. I was simply stating that my liberal friend cared about the feelings of the child and thought the parents were selfish, yet didn’t care about the feelings of a fetus inside of the mother’s womb. “If the family can't pay, then the tax payers will wind up footing the bill.” The point is the bill gets paid. In the U.S. the same thing happens. Millions of people every year refuse to pay medical bills. However, we still have hospitals. To address my opponent’s statement about who is supposed to handle the financial burden of “all of these children who Con would rather not see aborted”, there was an estimated 463,000 children in foster care in 2008. (1) Now I will attack my opponent’s source, but not on grounds of rather this source is biased or not. His sources tell him that “at any given time there are over 100,000 children in this country in foster care”. My source, which for this stat can be found by (1) – below, states a much higher number. And while this means more “millions” spent by taxpaying Americans, there are many more programs that the government has instituted and suggested we pay for that we could attack all day. Some my opponent and I would probably agree on. My opponent’s statement about rather or not I could care about children after they are born, “Apparently Con only cares about the welfare of children before they are born and couldn't care less about them afterwords.” Make no sense when the first thing I type about is about the Canadian child whose family is being ordered to take off of life support. Moreover, I have two children and couldn’t care more about my family, or the lives of children in foster care. “Con then pointed out that I didn't note which of his sources were pro-life and which weren't. I'll leave it to the reader to decide that for themselves. If I was mistaken, so be it.” This quote from my opponent’s argument is a clear indication of someone going back on their own arguments and a indicator that my opponent makes statements with no base or foundation to those statements. “Con then tries to polish his sources. As I stated earlier, a biased source, no matter how sweet, is still a biased source. But let's consider some other sources;” My opponent then goes on to name drop people who he feels are not “biased” But I thought, as my opponent stated earlier, “so finding a source that isn't biased, or seems to be biased, one way or the other is a very hard thing to do.” I’m not attacked my opponent’s sources here, he is. Addressing my opponent’s claims of organizations bombing or burning down clinics and etc, I do not condone these actions and any true Christian would not condone these actions either. Any true “Army of God” would never want to kill or hurt another individual simply because of beliefs. Some people claim to be Christians and commit acts of terror in the “name of God”. Some Muslims claim to be calm and move to America when the Koran calls for the death of every person who does not convert, or pay Jizya (non-believer tax). My point here is that people always pervert a religion. “So Pro-life advocates are willing to kill doctors, bomb buildings and spend millions on lobbyists and lawyers but they can't investigate crimes that they already have witnesses to?” Now, since both sides obvious pay lobbyists and lawyers, it isn’t fair to use this as an argument at all. My opponent said himself “Now I'm not saying all pro-choice advocates are terrorists and murderers,”, but now he has just labeled the entire group of Pro-Life advocates as people who are willing to bomb and kill. This, in my opinion, is an obvious contradiction. “ And while it isn't as clear cut as Con's anonymous source from Princeton would have us believe, I am willing to concede that life begins at conception and that aborting a fetus equates to ending a human life.” If my opponent would have read my source, he would have seen that the “anonymous source from Princeton” is actually a list of sources, plural as in more than one. Another interesting point I’d like to bring up dealing with this quote is it is part of the contradiction my opponent claims he did not make, “My opponent agreed that life begins at conception, and then contradicted this in his conclusion." No I didn't. And I'm sure if I did, you would've actually presented it instead of just making an accusation.” If you read his quote in the beginning of his debate, “And while it isn't as clear cut as Con's anonymous source from Princeton would have us believe, I am willing to concede that life begins at conception and that aborting a fetus equates to ending a human life.” Then compare this statement to his conclusion, “If the fetus isn't a person then aborting it isn't murder and the question of whether or not a fetus is a person is one of personal belief not scientific fact.” You can see that at the beginning he is willing to agree that life begins at conception and that aborting a fetus equates to ending a human life, yet in his conclusion, as if he talked himself out of it, he states that it isn’t a person and that aborting it isn’t murder. This, by definition is a contradiction and a contradiction, my friends, means that someone is wrong. Case and point. In conclusion I’d like to say that an unborn child is still just that, a child. He is separate from his mother in a scientific sense, as he has all of his own chromosomes and has his own feelings and habits.