Abortion

Firstly, Pro states that I spell foetus wrong. In fact, I spell it right. It is an americanism to insist in spelling it 'fetus'.The disparity comes in spelling differences between American English and British English. Considering that Britain is the home and creator of the English language, it follows that American English is a more bastardised form of British English.Hence I shall continue to call a foetus a foetus, and not a 'fetus', as the former is the correct spelling.'I would like to point out to the voters that this definition of human life is sloppy. A blood cell has the DNA and RNA of a human. A blood cell is organic, it's alive, and can function and change before death. But that does not make it a person by any means.'Having human DNA wasn't my full definition of human life; a being must also be an individual organism and alive in order to be a human being. In this way, blood cells are not human beings because, despite being both human and alive, they are not individual organisms. Yet foetuses are human beings because a foetus is an alive individual organism with unique human DNA.'Con said that a fetus is a totally separate organism in the mother's womb. This is not true. The fetus is 100% biologically dependent on the mother to live. Keep in mind I am not suggesting that a fetus is an extenuation of a person.'I didn't say that it was a 'totally separate organism', I simply said that it has a separate body, in other words, it has its own body.The fact that the foetus is dependent on the mother is irrelevant, as dependency does not refute the assertion that the foetus has its own, separate body.Just to say, when I say 'separate' I am not saying that the body is not attached, all this says is that the foetus is not a part of the mother's body, which logically entails that it is a separate body. 'It seems that Con is wanting to give special rights to fetuses. If I were going to die I CAN NOT hook myself up to someone else to circulate my blood. I do not have that right even if I might patently die. So a fetus does not have a right to use someone else body in order to live without their consent. If not, a fetus would have the right to use someone's body without consent. Just like you have to have consent with organ donation you have to give consent to continue a pregnancy.'1. The foetus does not choose to use the mother's body, unlike the person in the analogy.2. The analogy does not pertain to pregnancy. The very reason that the foetus is in such a state that it requires life-support is because of the actions of the mother. To adjust the analogy, it would be immoral for someone to sever my blood supply and then refuse to keep me alive using their body. 3. By engaging in sexual intercourse (an act intrinsically ordered towards procreation), one gives tacit consent to the possibility that they might conceive a foetus that will use their body. The reason that tacit consent is given is by virtue of that fact that sex is intrinsically ordered towards procreation. Of course there could be cases of rape, but I'll discuss these situations later.'Weather we are talking an organ or a womb, a child does not have a right to use someone else body without consent. Fair enough, but what I am saying is that it is immoral to not consent to harbouring one's child inside the womb. Of course a mother can not consent to this and go and abort her child, but I'm arguing that it is not moral to do this.'Legally, a parent is not obligated to provide those services.'I am not talking about legal obligations, I am talking about moral obligations.'Someone only has "special" obligations to a child in witch they choose to care for. That is why you can put a child up for adoption at any time.'Agreed, they can put the child up for adoption as soon as its possible to do so without harming the child. Therefore abortion is not justified as the mother can simply put the child up for adoption after she gives birth.Using an analogy, there is a mother in the middle of the wilderness who has given birth to an unwanted baby. Morally, is she justified in abandoning the baby because she has no obligations to children she does not wish to care for?Not at all, if she does not wish to care for the baby then she can hand it over to adoption centres, but if she cannot do this at the moment then she has an obligation to not harm the child until the child has been handed over.'I do not mean to be cliche, but the mother could have been raped. Just because you have sex does not mean you want to get pregnant.'1. A tiny minority of abortions are sought because of rape, so this is an appeal to extremes fallacy.2. Abortion does not do any good - it doesn't 'undo' the rape in any way and it is a misdirection of justice. The child is innocent and so it is not moral to punish it.'When someone can not make medical decisions on their own, those responsibilities go to the next of kin, in this case, the mother. So the mother can legally choose to "pull the plug" on the fetus and terminate the pregnancy.'With that logic, I would be able to murder my disabled brother because he cannot make medical decisions and I am his next of kin, yet this is absurd. Termination of life is not a medical decision.'You are implying that we live in an "Eye-for-an-eye" type crime system, in witch we do not. If I steal a television from the store, the government can not cut my fingers off and take my property.'Not at all, all I am saying is that if Person A causes Person B to be in a dependent position, then Person A is not morally justified in withdrawing the means of Person B's survival.Finally, Pro ignores the consistency argument, headed 'Argument 2'.