Abortion Should Be Illegal

Thank you for your arguments NewLifeChristian! Apologies for posting this round late. I was experiencing the HTTP 500 glitch which prevented me from viewing the debate. Framework My opponent provides no alternative framework to mine. As a result this means that you automatically ought to abide by the framework presented when analyzing and voting on this debate. No matter how mitigated my opponent may make my framework you still ought to abide by it because a framework is better than no framework. The Ethics Of Abortion My opponent fails to account for two facts. Firstly, they fail to count for the fact that this debate is not about the innateness of the “pro abortion” or “con abortion” belief. This is about whether it SHOULD be made illegal. There is no mention of quantity based in this debate. Secondly, my opponent fails to account for the fact that they use a bias news article written by a Pro life writer. I, on the other hand, have found official statistics from a neutral source proving that 54% of people are pro choice as opposed to pro life [1]. This bares no weight regardless. Fetal Pain The study my opponent presents here is an old one. Shortly after that study was released they were forced to revise the issue and ultimately they concluded that only at 24 weeks nerves for feeling pain begin to form and at 28 weeks (sometimes more) the fetus is able to actually detect and feel pain [2][3]. The definition of abortion (as stated in R1) specifically says that 28 weeks is the limit. This contention bares no weight as a consequence. The 14th Amendment The 14th amendment refers to the fetus being living. The fetus is not living therefore it is not applicable under the amendment. My opponent’s arguments for the fetus being living is a massive appeal to authority. He begins by quoting somebody saying in a book that the combination of sperm and the egg is start of somebody becoming a human. There is massive controversy on the issue and books written by Pro life advocates are not reliable sources. Furthermore, the book (that I happen to have read) only references to the fetus being human. Humanity is irrelevant under the framework due to the fact that libertarians care about life. A dead human is still a human. A flake of skin is still human. What most people (most importantly libertarians - due to the framework) is the aspect of life which my opponent fails to account for in his first quotation. The same as above is applicable for the second quotation. This is also a reference to humanity as oppose to life. We don’t give human rights to human skin cells for the same reason that we don’t give human rights to fetus’. Humanity is not a concern that we should be having here. Unless my opponent has anything else to add then I extend this argument. The final quotation is also the same concept as the other two. Things that are human are not necessarily human. Establishing this difference is crucial in these debates. Conclusion I have provided clear rebuttals to my opponent’s argument negating each of them with separate rebuttals. I once again thank my opponent for their arguments. The resolution is clearly negated. I look forward to my opponent’s next round. Sources [1] http://www.gallup.com...[2] http://www.motherjones.com...[3] 'Journey of An American Association.'