Abortion

1. I apologize for my mistake of misnaming the document that contained the phrase "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. " However this does not change my point that the founders of our constitution, and our government for that matter define "life" as a right to a human being. For Clarity's sake I would like to make clear that my opponent has conceded that fetus's are alive, but contends that they are not human, and thus do not have the right to life granted by our government. If my opponent has or would like to make the argument that the United States does not guarantee the right to life to human beings than I would gladly challenge him in a debate outside this one, so as to stay on topic. A. Coming back to whether fetus's are human or not - sub argument I am not arguing whether fetus's are human in the context of philosophy. Philosophy is pure hearsay and is based upon opinion and idle conjecture. I am debating whether a fetus is human in the eyes of the United States Law. Using your argument of philosophy (which uses rationality to denote humanity) would rule out people with Alzheimer's, dementia, and mental health diseases as having the rights both to live, and all other constitutional rights that we grant humans (as I have said previously) . My legal argument: Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb. "[2] The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), ï¿½ï¿½1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) ï¿½ï¿½919a (Article 119a). Notice how this defines a "child in utero" as a member of the species homo sapiens. B. Citizenship In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly declared in article three, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. " The United States is a member of the United Nations General Assembly, and thus abides and is subjected to their rules. This was unanimously incorporated by the assembly and by the United States. Furthermore, the chairman of this committee was Eleanor Roosevelt. The right to life is not only reserved to United States Citizens, but to humans in general. Thus, I cannot murder an illegal immigrant from Mexico and expect to get off scot free. I will be punished because every human bears the right to life. You stated that courts were infallible, however law is not. I have stated court cases which strongly argue in my favor, precedence is the basis of jurisdictional rulings in the U. S. Not only have I stated court cases, but I have stated federal laws which prove my point. My opponent has offered no proof that courts are infallible and has offered no proof that law is also infallible. He has used no facts, figures, or law to back up his arguments, only fish, mosquitoes, and philosophy. I have used and shown the precedence which has been in favor of my conjecture. 2. I do not need to show effective without exception to show the minute odds of contracting an unwanted pregnancy, because there is a tool out there which is 100% effective and that is abstinence. I'm not advocating abstinence, but am showing and the viewers of this debate the odds of contracting a pregnancy when using adequate protection. Furthermore adoption is also 100% effective. If a person does not want to and cannot afford to become pregnant than I suggest not being sexually active, or using contraceptive. If the remote chance occurs that while using protection they become pregnant then I suggest aborting it within the 21 days. If as my opponent stated the period is missed after the 21 days then I suggest putting the child up for adoption. Nowhere in the constitution does it grant anyone the right to deny human life. It is the woman's choice to be sexual active, and as I have said if they are raped/incest/at risk of dying then I am completely in favor of abortion. Let me explain the female cycle for you clearly. Conception can only occur during ovulation. Ovulation occurs two weeks before a menstrual cycle begins. Conception occurs two weeks after your period begins. So this means that you have 7 days after missed period to get an abortion. Pregnancy tests can detect pregnancy 4 days before your missed period. Your argument on economic non necessity would apply if a fetus was not recognized as a human under united states law. 3. So you propose that public opinion does not matter at all because democracy in your own eyes is not considered "good" No statistics is only more complicated than you think if I was judging by 1 poll or a group of polls that were done in an incoherent manner. However when national pollsters that are highly repudiated and unbiased have the same data, we get a public opinion that is accurate. And no these polls were not conducted via the Internet, they are random phone polls. Instead of trying to negate everything from the constitution, to the concept of democracy, to the laws of the United States, to court cases, to statistical polls, I suggest you provide more sufficient information on your own viewpoint instead of using anti virus software. (by the way tracking cookies are not harmless) 4. A. You might want to check the "infallible" constitution on cruel and unusual punishment. Fish again do not compare to human beings under the constitution. You eat fish. I sincerely hope you do not eat fetuses. B. No if you resist you will be tazed and further restrained and sent to jail for a longer period of time. Only if you make an attempt on the officers life will you be killed in self defense, and even then officers shoot to wound and disable first. And no a death penalty does not result from trespassing so your inordinate logic does not make sense. There is no "death penalty" only death in self defense if you make an attempt on the officers life, not trespassing. Therefore this argument makes no sense that you receive a death penalty for trespassing. C. Until it is revised or added to, it is if you live in the United States So are you suggesting my great grandfather who talks aloud to his dead wife while I am sitting there is rational? Or anyone that is brain dead does not deserve to live? Or that my Great Aunt who cannot even speak anymore but just mumbles incoherently in a bed deserves death? "If such illness exists, whosoever has it of course has no rights, but I am not under the impression that it exists. " So are you stating that under the laws of the United States murdering any of the persons mentioned above or in your argument has no crime or penalty at all. I believe, that you are sincerely mistaken. I have offered plenty of points of why abortion should be legal. 1. because the U. S. Court system has recognized the humanity of a fetus 2. you conceded they were alive 3. Because there are alternatives available such as adoption 4. Because all humans have the right to life 5. Because public opinion is in support 6. Because trespassing does not constitute a death sentence 7. Because the fetus feels pain during the abortion which under US law is cruel and unusual punishment 8. Because there are 100% effective solutions to preventing birth 9. Because when the mothers choice to have sexual intercourse is violated my argument allows abortion 10. Because when the mother's life is at stake my argument allows abortion I welcome my opponents next rebuttal and hope he is doing well.