Abortion should be illegal

Thank you Con. Con has focused his argument to two elements: The role of government and sentience. 1. "The role of government is to maximize the desires of the people." Con continues to press their view that governments exist chiefly to make utilitarian calculations that solve rights disputes, as if that's the end of the discussion. This is nothing more than question begging. Con is assuming their view on government is true and presents it as evidence for their case. In reality, many people have many different opinions on what the true role of government is. Fukayama believes government exists to help human groups achieve what human individuals cannot. Hobbes believes government's only job is to protect human life. Locke believes government must protect life and property. Hamilton believes government should decide people's interests for them. On and on... Furthermore, Con's opinion on the role of government really only applies to democracy. Monarchy, theocracy, oligarchy, and other forms do not much trouble themselves with the "desires of the people." Con accuses me of being too "U.S.-centric," but fails to see that he is being "democracy-centric." Con's argument hinges on us agreeing with his definition of government, but has given us no proof to do so. Furthermore, even if government's role was to maximize the desires of the people, what if the people desired to make abortion illegal? Then, according to Con, the government would be compelled to make it illegal. At best, a given population favors legal abortion, in which case Con's argument becomes a mere appeal to popularity (which is ironic, given that Con stated he doesn't support "status quo" arguments). At worst, the given population does not favor abortion, in which case Con's own logic necessitates the government make it illegal, which falls right in with my position. 2. Sentience - Con is willing to agree with me that a fetus/embryo is human life at every stage of development. Their only argument is that it's not sentient human life. But it seems that Con is carefully walking back their previous statements. In Round 2, Con states, I quote, ". . . the fetus is not sentient until 24 weeks." The only justification for this claims is the citation to the article claiming no pain before 24 weeks. The conclusion Con draws from this is crystal clear, again, quote, "Before 24 weeks, therefore [because they feel no pain], the fetus cannot perceive any harm to itself -- it doesn't have interests . . . Since the fetus can't perceive harm, harm cannot be done to the fetus." Very clearly then, from Con's own words, the only quality Con has so far associated with sentience is ability to feel pain. Therefore, Con either made a mistake in Round 2, or he is now moving the goalposts. When I demonstrated that this is a terrible metric for sentience, Con says "I agree." Then he attempts to redirect by saying "but I'm going to argue that the fetus doesn't fulfill any dimension of sentience." But the problem is that Con has not actually explained what the dimensions of sentience are. Con says people with CIP are still sentient, but doesn't explain why. I challenge Con to explain exactly what qualifies a being as sentient in the next round. Con boldly proclaims 24-week sentience as "well-established in scientific fact" when in reality it is nothing more than a scientific guess. There is virtually no scientific agreement on this issue, as this source plainly exposes: "the idea that there is a precise moment when a foetus gets the right to live, which it didn't have a few moments earlier, feels very strange. And when you look closely at each of the suggested dates, they do seem either arbitrary or not precise enough to decide whether the unborn should have the right to live." [1] Con claims that a fetus can't feel or perceive things until 24 weeks, but that is demonstrably false. The fetus begins breathing movements at 9 weeks, responds to touch at 12 weeks, eye movements at 14 weeks, can taste at 15 weeks, can hear at 20 weeks, on and on... [2]. Once again, Con has confidently proclaimed "it's [the fetus] completely non-sentient" but has failed to actually detail what sentience is. Until they do so, this argument cannot be accepted. Con then Straw Mans my point about the right to autonomy. I did not say a right to autonomy doesn't exist, I said there is no blanket right to bodily autonomy. Con clarifies that he is not claiming that an autonomy right DOES exist, but merely that it should. This can only be consistent with Con's argument if truly no harm is being done. However, Con again backtracks by saying they are merely using the term "harm" for "convenience," and that he really means sentience, which brings us back to the problem that Con has not actually defined what sentience is. In the end, we are left wondering what Con is actually saying then. Inconsistency - Con says my UVVA argument is invalid because it is U.S.-centric. I grant that we never specified which country we are talking about. But we are talking about legal matters, and legal matters are specific to individual countries - there is no [enforceable] universal law. So in my defense, we also never specified that I could not argue within the framework of a particular country. I am American, so it is only common sense that I would be arguing from an American legal framework. Pro is arguing that an action should be legalized, and common sense would dictate that legalization must happen within the jurisdiction of a single country or body. Con then claims the UVVA is null because the fetus is part of the woman's body. But that's not what the law says at all. The law states quite plainly that an unborn human - in any stage of development - has rights EQUAL to those of the mother. The fact that it happens to be attached to the mother by a cord is irrelevant, it still has equal rights to a fully mature, autonomous human being. As such, abortion is completely inconsistent with this law. No one should be allowed to consent to harming a life that has equal rights as them. Con thinks my point on back alley abortions is ridiculous. But their rebuttal is equally ridiculous. My argument is meant to sound ridiculous because it is a reductio ad absurdum of Con's case. Con says things are not made illegal because things are right or wrong, they are made illegal because they produce better outcomes. But my question to Con is - what is "better?" Is that not an indication of something that is "right" suggesting that "not better" would be "wrong?" We are talking about the same thing but using different words. Is there such a thing as something being inherently "better?" Con's protests apply equally to their own argument, they just don't see it. The truth is my critique stands - legalizing something just because "it will happen anyway" is a terrible reason to make something illegal. At bottom, destroying human life is wrong and should be illegal. Con agrees that a fetus is human, but argues that it isn't sentient. However, Con has provided no explanation of what they mean by "sentient" and therefore his argument cannot be accepted. As such, we default to the next point of mutual agreement, which is that a fetus is human life. This supports my argument entirely. As such, vote Pro. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [2] http://www.beginbeforebirth.org...