Abortion

Con is concerned that I have not refuted his points. While I have already, I also have no issue doing again, as there is little past my initial positive statement that needs to be made. "If the child refuses to leave my body, I have a right to kill it.." Where does anything suggest that you have the right to kill an innocent human being, who is not yet conscious, just for the location where they live? The right is within my right to control my own body. Within the US, the right of privacy: personal autonomy are within the constitution due process clause of the 14th Amendment and may include as parts of the right of privacy under the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments [1]. The decision that most closely recognizes this right provided by the 14th amendment is Row vs. Wade. So, to make it CRYSTAL clear. The US constitution is what suggest that I have this right. The body is as much as a physical location as a house. Obviously there are differences, but living in a house or living inside a body can be equated in the grounds that they are both physical locations. OK, so what? You wouldn't kill a year old child who wanders into your room if they refuse to leave. You wouldn't kill an unconscious adult for refusing to leave your house because they have no culpability for their actions. Both would be murder. Con simply wanders past the point over and over. If the child “wanders” INSIDE MY BODY, using my organs, refusing to leave. I have the right to expel it with any means necessary to insure MY right to body autonomy. Where you live does not determine whether you live. Sure it does. You have been attempting to bring in other analogs, but none are necessary. If a fetus/human/person/child is living within my body, using my organs, without my consent, it is my right to kill it. The fetus (a living human being) has no culpability and therefore is innocent. Because the child is innocent, and where you live does not determine whether you live, then the child has the right to life. Most importantly, if you agree there are certain rights to your own body then you must agree on other rights, chiefly the right to life. The right of the fetus/human/person/child do not negate MY right to my own body. If the fetus/human/person/child vacates on my command, or without the necessity of killing it, fine. Since the right to life is the right from which all other rights stem, then you have to protect the right to life in this situation. Because the right to life trumps the right to control your own body, and because there are two separate individuals involved in abortion, and both have the ultimate right to life, then the child cannot be killed. Are you really ok with eliminating the chief right from which all other rights stem aka the right to life? See above. Since every single human being has the right to life, and you admit the fetus is a human being, then you cannot justify killing the innocent human being inside the mother. Whether you like it or not, if you support the right to life, then you inherently have to be opposed to abortion. See above. "The Child is in violation of the wishes to leave my body" Refer to above arguments. OK I have. "Not at all. Sex is not only for reproduction. Provide anything to back that." First of all, I never said sex was ONLY for reproduction. I said all consensual sex inherently consents to reproduction. That is not the same thing as saying sex is only for reproduction. In fact, sex also brings the couple closer together by usage of hormones. Sex bonds the people consenting to it. But this is not the point. I am saying that if you have consensual sex, you are open to reproduction. Sexual intercourse is the act by which two beings of the opposite (not always true) sex reproduce. Therefore, since sex is the means by which reproduction occurs, sexual intercourse will always mean that reproduction is possible. And because sex leads to reproduction, then by consenting to sex, you consent to the reproduction. Since those who participate in sexual intercourse are aware of the possibility of becoming pregnant, and they still consent to sex, then they are consenting to the sex which inherently, as part of its essence, possesses to possibility for pregnancy. They are consenting to the possibilities of reproducing aka conceiving a child. Consent is NOT given. You have this wish for tacit consent the does not exist. Noun 1. permission for something to happen or agreement to do something. "no change may be made without the consent of all the partners" "Good thing abortion is legal." So its a good thing to run away from our responsibilities by killing children? It’s a good thing that the government can’t force me to use my body against my will. That child has every right to life that you and I have. Killing the fetus is equal to killing you or me since the fetus, you ,and I are human beings and all human beings are created equal. So it is a terrible thing that it is legal to brutally kill innocent babies who cannot defend themselves. Humans that are not violating my right to control my body are none of my concern. Those that are, I have a complete right over. "Conjecture" These arguments support the statements that sex consents to conception. You cannot run away from a responsibility to protect that child's life any more than a gambler can run away from his debt. People need to protect that inalienable right to life, not remove it. I have a responsibility to control my own body. One of the responsibilities is control what can and can’t use it for its own selfish reasons. "It will not leave my body voluntarily. It is violating my right to determine the use of my body." How can you justifiably condemn a human being to death who had no choice to be in your body? How can you justifiably condemn an innocent human baby to death who cannot voluntarily make any conscious choices? How can you justifiably condemn an innocent human child to death for the actions of his or her parents in having sex? You would be condemning an innocent child to death for the actions of his or her parents. That is wrong. I will say this again: OK. You think it’s wrong. We knew that going in. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu...