Abortion should remain legal in the United States

Rebuttal 1Human LifeAs I said this point was almost irrelevant to the points I was going to be making. I will however again touch on this briefly. Pro makes the arguments that because someone is lacking senses they are still considered a human. That is true obviously. The issue is not whether the fetus is lacking senses but whether the senses were ever developed to begin with. The same could be said about life, how could someone be living had they not been born?Con also did not address what life essentially is. There is plant life, organic life, and multiple types of bio diversity. So the question is what separates a fetus from any of those categorizes. Just simply because it was conceived and is in fact living, does not entail the fact that it is a human. This is essentially the same stance which I mentioned before(A) A fetus is living and it was conceived by a human, therefore it is a living human. So again the real question is when is the fetus actually considered a person? There are typical characteristics that most people possess. Some of which I mentioned in my prior round. They develop conscious, feel pain, have emotion, can react to situations, have awareness[1]. As I have shown most studies, put this at around the 24th week. So again the concept that it is in fact a human at the time on conception is impossible to answer. The question it self asks this from both a scientific and philosophical approach. We know the fetus is living, but I have also shown that it does not develop traits that are common among humans until at least the 24th week of pregnancy. Rebuttal 2The Life of the MotherHe says this"The global death rate among pregnant women does not accurately represent the US death rate"Which is true and I was not using this as an ad populm but rather to show how many pregnancies can be fatal if the right circumstances are not present. Granted the US is blessed with technology that can limit this number, it is by no means as small as Con makes it out to be. He then says this" In the US, the numbers go between 15 for every 100,000"NOTE : This is a FATAL error on Cons part. The statics that he presented are only in the case of ectopic pregnancies. Granted a good number of surveys you see will portray this number, it only looks at the fatality rates from this specific condition as well. Ectopic Pregnancy : An ectopic pregnancy, or eccysis, is a complication of pregnancy in which the embryo implants outside the uterine cavity[2]Take a look at the statistics involving only ectopic pregnancies. "Ectopic pregnancy occurs at a rate of 19.7 cases per 1,000 pregnancies in North America and is a leading cause of maternal mortality in the first trimester" [3]"Ectopic pregnancies are extremely rare and only result in a few deaths for every tens and thousands of pregnancies"He is taking one condition and applying it objectively as the soul cause of fatal pregnancies. This is not even considering the pregnancies that result in complications when they are getting ready to deliver. Even recent studies show that pregnancy is actually more fatal now than it was years ago "The maternal death rate in the U.S. is creeping upward — to more than double what it was 25 years ago. Systems identifying deaths have improved, so how much the increase can be attributed to risk is uncertain. But experts agree maternal deaths are no longer declining, are underestimated, largely preventable and disproportionately affect certain groups."[4]"The rate of severe and fatal complications during and after delivery have also doubled in the US within the last decade, according to a 2012 federal study"[4]So even if we are going by the the smaller number here is the issue at hand. Con is delivering this from a greater of two evils perspective. There are a whole lot of abortions that happen, therefore since a small number of women actually die in the process, the most logical step is to outlaw abortion to prevent all the people whom are having abortions. By that argument he is justifying and telling the mother they should have to die regardless of her own thoughts and perspective. Remember this fetus does not feel pain, or exhibit thoughts, or conscious as I have already shown. Even if you take the most minimal number that could possibly occur, you are still telling 15 people whom actually have feelings, thoughts, and conscious that they have to die even if they chose not to for a fetus whom exhibits none of the qualities. He also did not address the topic of early term fatal pregnancies which are ironically mostly ectopic. (A) The mother has to have an abortion or the baby dies (B) If the mother goes through the pregnancy the both dieHe just simply put this on the fact that it only happens around 15 times a year in the US, so we should not worry with it. He also wants to refer to self defense as an argument in favor of his stance. For the sake of argument let us say that aborting a fetus is committing a murder. Is there ever a circumstance in which committing a murder can be justified. Justifiable Homicide - Rightful; warranted or sanctioned by law; that which can be shown to be sustained by law[5]We are also by law promised the right to act in self defense. "The right of self-defense (according to U.S. law) (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in violence for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including the use of deadly force."[6]So if we took pros stance and actually considered the fetus a human, we are promised by law the right to terminate it if it could endanger the mothers life. In the case of terminal pregnancies, the mother is in fact suffering and will die from it. Telling her she does not have the right to reasonably defend herself because it does not happen that often is a bold statement to make.Rebuttal 3Rape"Appealing to rape isn’t really relevant anyways. The cause of conception does not revoke a babies human rights"I was kind of mind blown when I read that. Again considering that this fetus has rights or is considered a human, that does not grant it authority over the person in whom it is dependent on. Con cites stats saying that 75 percent of of people whom are raped chose to go through with the pregnancy. This number is actually extremely lower than what pro claims, and was also cited from a religious source. I have minimal words left so I am just going to cite one line from that survey"In contrast, not a single one of the 70% who had their children regretted it. [7]This goes on to claim that every single woman whom was raped did not regret the decision. This was not a poll but a study done to show the actual number or so they claim. They are claiming every woman whom has ever been raped and had the child does not regret it which is an impossible statistic to actually know. I need not point out this based off illogical thought and speculation rather than fact. 44 percent of rapes occur to someone under the age of 18 [8]. Needless to say not giving them an option to opt out makes no sense. Con claims that this does not supersede the right of the fetus. Again in extreme situations of emotional distress and pain, we are allotted the right to defend our self and I have shown situations in which it is allowed by law. Just think of the fact if you had a daughter and she was raped and got pregnant. She did not want to go through with it but because someone thought it was wrong to have an abortion she must then suffer the consequences and deal with the emotional stress of having a child she is not ready for and even through the pain and distress of being raped on a day to day basis. This is almost an inhuman stance. He then claims that the rapist having visitation rights is irrelevant. As if it would offer no emotional distress whatsoever. If there is anyway to remove distress or pain from someone whom did not ask for it, that right should be granted. End Point: Con finally says, make her go through the ordeal and suffer mentally then put the child up for adoption. Again this strips away her right to chose what to do with her body. She must suffer because of someone elses choiceIn ClosingCons entire argument hinges on the fact that more abortions happen than fatal pregnancies so abortion should be banned on a federal level all together. Again denying someone whom can feel pain, have emotional attachments, feel scared, and whom has family ties the right to stay alive is a horrid thought. The only condolence that we can offer her is that she will die knowing that she could possibly save her future child, whom still could die during the childbirth. I have no idea what kind of justification someone could give for risking two lives in any situation. Even if we took the ectopic pregnancies alone, we are denying 15 women the right to live regardless of their choice in hopes that they baby will actually be delivered alive. I sincerely urge anyone to use logic and be well aware that if we know we can save the mothers life, it is a far more viable option to terminate the fetus rather than kill the mother and hope the fetus makes it through delivery. However we look at it , it is her right to chose and her right to defend her body. If my fiance was lying on a table and could die from an abortion, I would want more than prayers. I would want a solution. [1] Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity, Harvard University Press, 1992.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.aafp.org...[4]stltoday.com[5]http://thelawdictionary.org...[6]http://www.princeton.edu...[7]Sandra Kathleen Mahkorn, M.D. and William V. Dolan, M.D[8]http://www.rainn.org...