Abortion

First and foremost, I shall restate the medical definition of an abortion: "the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost. " My opponent's first argument was that the assault of a pregnant woman for the purpose of ending her pregnancy was assault and not abortion. This attack causes the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) as per the definition. This is abortion. This point is inarguable. Whether or not it is assault is irrelevant because it would be wrong for a woman to ask someone *else* to kick her in the stomach while pregnant. My opponent's argument says that the immorality lies in the assault and not the abortion, but this is illogical because this is the same act. If the kicker is seeking to cause the mother to abort, then this is an abortion, no matter how confusing my opponent wants to get. My opponent's second argument is that based on my definition, Plan B would be classified as abortion. In that case, so would condoms, birth control pills, withdrawal, masturbation, etc. Thankfully, this is not the case because my opponent has fabricated his own interpretation of abortion and falsely claimed that it was my definition. I ask the audience to quickly reread that definition and read this source: . http://health.howstuffworks.com... This source clearly states that the morning after pill simply will not work if the mother is already pregnant. This completely negates my opponent's counterargument. However, to be honest, I am a pharmacy student and I know that there is an alternative mechanism whereby conception can occur and that the embryo is just unable to latch onto the uterine lining. Even if this speculative mechanism is true, it still would not be classified as an abortifacient because it would not expel fetal membranes or a placenta, as dictated in the definition. So thus, my opponent is not just wrong based on known facts, he is wrong based on scientific speculation too. My opponent's third argument is the following: Any act of the mother eliminating her child would be classified as abortion only if it is intended by the carrier. First of all, it is very poor conduct to introduce a new and totally different definition in the last round of debate when we have been operating under mine for the past several rounds. And now, my opponent decides to introduce his personal definition of abortion? I think not. I would have accepted this definition if my opponent had not wasted his first round, but I must reject this definition because first, he has no source, and second, he seemed to accept mine in prior rounds. Now, let us continue on with the other arguments that my opponent is wrong about. My opponent has admitted the fact that he ignored the four categories I stated. Regretfully, the act of doing so constitutes bad conduct because according to the definition of abortion, all four of those categories I listed count as abortion. My opponent cannot simply ignore that point just because he doesn't like it, because those four categories completely destroy his argument. Thus, I assume he concedes those points along with the debate and at this point, we're just chatting. My opponent then goes on another rant about moral relativity. However, in the middle of his rant, he said the following: "Assault is not moral". It seems strange that a person arguing moral relativity would make a statement like that, do you not agree, audience? It seems to me that my opponent does not know where he is going with this argument. The problem with complete moral independence is the fact that we all share similar moral views. Thus, the only explanation is that morality is based on society and popularity, negating all my opponent's arguments and strengthening my notion that we as individuals can tell that kicking in a pregnant woman's stomach to induce an abortion is *immoral*. Afterwards, my opponent states that he *did* respond to my points. I assure the audience that he did no such thing except assume that his definition (Any act of the mother eliminating her child would be classified as abortion only if it is intended by the carrier. ) is acceptable. As I have stated before, he has no sources for this definition and this is his last round. This is why his definition is unacceptable and why he has not offered any argument against my points. As for his final argument: "I extend my previous arguments. .. ." I regretfully inform my opponent that he has no arguments to extend, because I have countered all of them. The problem is that this is not mutual. My opponent has either intentionally or accidentally ignored over half of the points that I made in this debate. My opponent claims to be for all forms of abortion with no restrictions. This is evidenced by the fact that he did not disagree with the burden I placed on him. I have stated that miscarriages, unwilling abortions, and unsafe abortions involving coat hangers or flinging oneself off a flight of stairs are most definitely forms of abortion that we should prevent. My opponent has expressed nothing but silence towards all those points. But curiously, my opponent has spent a considerable amount of time arguing against anti-abortion arguments that I did not make, nor did I even allude to. And as I have debunked all of my opponent's counterpoints with plenty of arguments of my own left standing, I shall keep in good conduct and not introduce new arguments in this final round. As such, I urge the audience to vote CON. Thank you to my opponent and to the audience. This has been a most enjoyable debate.