Abortion

I'd like to begin this round with a word about references. The issue of abortion has been a fiercely debated topic for over 40 years and there are very few people who have involved themselves in this issue who haven't taken one side or the other, so finding a source that isn't biased, or seems to be biased, one way or the other is a very hard thing to do. I have pointed out the obvious prejudice of my opponent's sources and he has countered by challenging me to provide sources of my own – which he will undoubtedly attack as being prejudiced themselves. Personally, I'd like to rely on the merits of my argument rather than the authority of my sources, so I will ignore my opponents requests for sources except where I feel it necessary. Apparently, my opponent would also like to turn this into a question of semantics and proper grammar. I guess if you have no real argument the best you can hope for is to win on points. He insists that the word "fetus" should defined as meaning "child" so that abortion should be seen as being equal to child killing. I would like to point out the the word "wife" originally meant "cook" but that shouldn't mean that married women should be confined to the kitchen. Abortion only applies to the unborn whether they be children, fetuses or what have you. I would also like to point out that, even though I was willing to assume the burden of proof and defend my position, Con has chosen to ignore my argument almost completely and instead defend against my rebuttal. The only time he even touched on my position was when he said, "I believe we could all agree a person, becomes a person, when life begins.", and "I won't address my opponents closing arguments as it is opinion and my entire argument goes against it." If we all agreed that a person becomes a person when life begins there wouldn't be reason to debate this issue. The fact is, there is no agreement on this issue. There are lots of people who don't think fetuses qualify as people and feel justified in removing them before they become people. So, by what right does my opponent feel that he can assert his beliefs as though they are facts and deny others the right to to hold differing beliefs? My opponent likes to feel he is arguing from a position of authority. I would like to see what facts he has that support his assertion that a person becomes a person when life begins. Otherwise, his whole argument boils down to an assertion that his opinion should have more merit than mine. And since he has chosen not to rebut my position I cannot see why I should not win by default. Rebuttal: "I am not debating rather the Canadian baby is a fetus or not." Then why bring it up? This child has already been born so even if the doctors remove the breathing tube it still technically isn't an abortion. "Also, most of the time, when a procedure is done in a hospital, the hospital is paid for their time and the doctor for his skills." Paid by who? If the father could afford to pay for this why is he asking for donations? And remember, this is in Canada where they have socialized medicine. If the family can't pay, then the tax payers will wind up footing the bill. And while we're on the topic of money, who exactly is supposed to handle the financial burden of raising all of these children who Con would rather not see aborted? There is, at any given time, over 100,000 children in this country in foster care costing tax payers millions of dollars each year to feed, house and clothe. And each year there are more entering the system than are being adopted. Even if 9 out of every 10 mothers raised their child themselves instead of aborting them, that would still double the amount of children without any means of support except for foster care. Apparently Con only cares about the welfare of children before they are born and couldn't care less about them afterwords. http://www.acf.hhs.gov... http://www.davethomasfoundation.org... http://www.abortionno.org... Con then pointed out that I didn't note which of his sources were pro-life and which weren't. I'll leave it to the reader to decide that for themselves. If I was mistaken, so be it. Con then tries to polish his sources. As I stated earlier, a biased source, no matter how sweet, is still a biased source. But let's consider some other sources; Michael Griffen, Paul Hill, John Salvi, James Kopp and Scott Roeder all gunned down innocent people because they were connected to abortion clinics, Eric Rudolph, David McMenemy, John Earl, Martin Uphoff, amongst others, have tried to bomb or burn down clinics, and organizations like the Army of God, the American Coalition of Life Activists and Operation Rescue not only have condoned violence against abortionists but have actively cultivated it. Now I'm not saying all pro-choice advocates are terrorists and murderers, but, if there are those willing to to go to these measures for this cause, how much of a stretch is it to believe that some might provide false testimony or fabricate or embellish their facts? http://www.kansas.com... http://www.worldlingo.com... http://www.clarkprosecutor.org... http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.cbsnews.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.cbsnews.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://mediamatters.org... In response to my question, why aren't there hundreds of lawsuits being filed against abortion clinics if they're lying to patients, Con responded "if these women were lying as good as they claim, why would there be lawsuits?" So Pro-life advocates are willing to kill doctors, bomb buildings and spend millions on lobbyists and lawyers but they can't investigate crimes that they already have witnesses to? "Obviously, comparing abortion and stoning a woman to death would be a dangerous comparison" And yet, this is exactly what my opponent wishes to do. "Obviously, by the testimonies of the women who have worked at abortionist clinics...accurate information is not provided." If my opponent had bothered to read my source he would have noted that the misinformation I was referring to is being generated by pro-life advocates who have used local politicians to force doctors and clinics to lie to patients about fictitious dangers and hazards in order to scare them away. "Laws say a lot of things. Obviously they are not always followed as my opponent argues for me." Excuse me, but where exactly did you argue that laws shouldn't be followed? "My opponent agreed that life begins at conception, and then contradicted this in his conclusion." No I didn't. And I'm sure if I did, you would've actually presented it instead of just making an accusation. "But think about the fact that even a pro-choice person, has to use the term "killing a fetus", when we've established that fetus literally means "child"." When did "we" establish this? If anyone is confused let me spell it out. A fetus is an unborn child and as an unborn child, it does not automatically gain the quality of person-hood that a child that has been born receives. Conclusion: Con's position is simple; he believes that unborn children are people and should be given all the rights and privileges that all other people get no matter what the cost. He has no real foundation for this belief so has instead tried to erase the line between the born and the unborn, make emotional pleas, use arguments from authority and attack my credibility. What he has not done is give a single reason why his beliefs should take precedence over the beliefs of others. Everyone should get a choice, not just Con.