Woman's Choice to "House" her Unborn.

PRO has apparently taken the approach of ignoring all of my arguments and repeating her own ad nauseum without addressing a single point I have raised against them. Therefore, I will be brief in going over the points raised throughout the debate. ===> AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENTS <=== ----> Necessity for Abortions PRO has completely ignored all my arguments and merely repeated herself with no evidence to support her outrageous claims. Her entire argument seems to be an empty and shamelessly emotional attempt to win the audience over with a fictional story of a foolish girl behaving very selfishly. Excluding the hard case exceptions, which I have fully refuted, there is absolutely NO necessity for abortion given the high demand for adopted children. I have clearly refuted her contention regarding back alley abortions, self-induced abortions, etc. The stubborn fact remains that abortion related deaths were far lower back when fewer abortions were being performed. She has presented one new argument: what if the mother's life is in danger? These cases account for less than 1% of all abortions, but I will address it nonetheless. [3] I apply the same rationale as I do in the rape instance; if the child poses a clear threat to the life of the mother, it is a criminal aggressor and can ethically be removed. It is absurd to suggest that within a pro-life framework, that if the child poses a threat to the mother both lives must be lost. The mother should not be forced to sacrifice herself in order to save the child, though obviously she is free to do so if she should so choose. [4] ----> Right to Bodily Autonomy Whence is this right derived? PRO makes some vague attempts to link it to the will of society. If this is the case, a clear majority of people in America are currently pro-life. [1] If rights are based on utilitarianism (what is best for the most), I have already given several reasons why abortion is harmful to society (which PRO has, again, completely ignored). If rights are based on personal ownership, as I have argued, then there exists good reason to apply it equally to the unborn. Without a coherent basis for the existence of rights, PRO's entire case is reduced to arguing from a non-existent right she claims exists in the Constitution and begging the question of the legal status of the fetus. PRO has, however, raised one valid point: what are we to do with mothers who drink, or smoke, or otherwise harm the fetus? Though problematic, this is not nearly the issue PRO seems to thinks it is. In the legal context, something can be a crime if and only if it is done with the "specific intent" to break the law. [2] Thus, if a mother's action is done with the specific intent to harm the fetus (attempting to poison it with alcohol, drug overdose, etc. ) it should be handled the same way as any other form of abortion. ----> Different Value Placed on Life PRO has done little more than repeat herself…I refuted this TWICE already, the fact that one person's life is INCONVENIENT for another person (or society) does not justify taking it. This same rationale could be used to justify killing anyone whom society terms "undesirable. " I can think of more than one mass murderer who enthusiastically embraced my opponent's line of "reasoning. " PRO has not raised a SINGLE objection to this point, therefore I hold it to have been conceded. I have to say I was somewhat amused at my opponent's argument that rights are inherent in a being that possesses "moral reasoning, processing information, known self-existence, capability to communicate, and relate to others, etc. " An infant does not yet possess these faculties, nor does a person who is unconscious, or a patient with a temporarily flat EMG, or even someone sleeping. [5] Does this justify murder in these cases? In all of these examples, as well as that of the unborn child, the POTENTIAL ability to perform these actions exists. Functionalism as a rights criterion can safely be called defunct. PRO claims that "If ‘person hood' can be scientifically proved(sic), abortion would surely be outlawed" while completely ignoring my definition of personhood, the reasons I gave why an unborn child ought to be considered a person, and my use of the equal protection clause. She has disregarded my contention that in the event of uncertainty, we should err on the side of caution. As such, the argument should go to CON. I will reiterate what I have said in earlier rounds; this is the central argument of the debate. If a fetus is a person deserving of the right to life, then abortion is murder and all of PRO's other points are irrelevant. ----> CONCLUSION PRO has done nothing in this last round but repeat herself. Virtually all of my arguments have gone unrefuted, and PRO has not given a definitive source for a single one of her claims. I can safely say that I have won arguments, sources, and grammar. I thank my opponent and the audience and strongly urge a CON vote. BIBLIOGRAPHY: . http://www.debate.org...