Abortion

" Under the constitution of the United States ""Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" Listed as the inalienable rights given to a citizen, or person born inside the United States. By conceding that a fetus is a live human being, opponent has implicently recognized that a fetus has the right to life under the constitution." By using this argument, my opponent has conceded that she has not fully and carefully read the constitution. Nowhere in the constitution does the phrase "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" appear. It appears in the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legal document, but a symbolic resolution. Also, even were this the case, recognizing that fetuses are "Alive" does not constitute recognizing that they are a "live human being." I never once stated they were "human beings," and I reject that notion. Human, in the context of philosophy, means "rational animal." Fetuses are not rational. " In response with the consistency remark, the consitution does not grant mosquitos citizenship and thus not the rights under the consititution." Nor does it grant fetuses citizenry. It contains references to citizens, but it does not mention anything that would grant them citizenship, except birth (the words "natural-born citizen" appear in it), or the consent of any state existing in the union prior to the year 1808, and after that, it is presumably left to Congress to decide by implication. Note, however, that it is not of fundamental importance whether the Constitution favors either of us, the Constitition is no infallible document. What is important is what ought to be, not what is written in the Constitution. " In addition to the current topic, I would like to add that in court cases where a pregnant woman was murdered, the killer was charged with two counts of murder one for the mother and one for the fetus." Courts, too, are not infallible. We are arguing whether abortion SHOULD BE illegal, not whether it is. " As you can see the United States Law agrees that a fetus is a human being and has rights which include life." See above. " The pill is over 99.8% effective when taken properly, and the male condom is over 98% effective. Combining these two methods is extremely effective." "Extremely effective" does not constitute "effective without exception." It is not sufficient to demonstrate that there can be NO reason why an abortion may still be needed. "Most doctors recommend that you wait until the first day of your missed period before taking a home pregnancy test. This is usually around two weeks after conception. However, some tests are more sensitive than others and can be taken earlier. Notice how I said abortions to illegalize abortions after 3 weeks. So even for the lower than 0.2% who get pregnant, abortion is still an option provided they take a pregnancy test when they miss their period." "Usually" is not always. Periods happen roughly a monthly basis, not a triweekly basis. Conception can theoretically occur at roughly any time of the month. This leaves a window at which it is possible that the missed period happens when it is already too late by law. And, it assumes one is paying attention, it assumes one's period is regular, it assumes that pregnancy is the only cause for a missed period, all of which are imperfect assumptions. And even in the event that the assumptions were perfect, this would be an argument for the economic nonnecessity of abortion, but not an argument for it's illegalization. Many things which are not strictly necessary still ought not be illegal. People use antivirus software to delete cookies, despite the fact that cookies are harmless. "Which is why we use votes in the United States to decide all of our issues?" This is an argument about what OUGHT to be done. The fact that we ARE democratic to some extent, is not sufficient to prove that democracy is GOOD. " B. This statement is correct, however a majority of polls available on the internet taken by repudidated pollsters showed the same evidence with a +- gap of 4 percent, still effectively proving my argument." Not noticing, of course, the inherent bias of voluntary response polls, and the fact that that +- 4% is assuming ideal conditions (i.e. no sources of statistical bias whatsoever), and even then there is a 5% chance that it falls outside the +- 4% range (Statistics is more complicated than you might think). " A. We do not eat unborn infants and thus fish have absolutely nothing to do in comparison to this argument. " We kill fish. We kill fetuses. If you use a given reasoning as a grounds for killing one, and it applies to another, it is relevant to demand you be consistent in relation to the other. " B. Additionally, nowhere in the United States is there a death penalty for trespassing, or for violating anyone's rights other than the right to live." This is not true. If I trespass, I will be taken to jail granted, but if I resist, I will be shot, even if I do not violate anyone's right to live. Thus, a death penalty results from trespassing. Ultimately all law depends upon the death penalty de facto, even if this is not acknowledged de jure, without it, the rest has no power. " C. Also nowhere in the consitution does rationality determine the right to live. " The constitution, again, is not an infallible document. "If you are taking this stance then you are sentencing plenty of people on alzheimer's, dimensia, and mental health diseases to death." Alzheimer's does not remove the quality of rationality as such, it impairs memory. Dementia, too, does not remove the quality of rationality as such, though it does impair it to some extent, it simply reduces it's scope rather than eliminating it entirely, if my understanding of the matter is correct. I am, indeed, unaware of a major mental illness which causes homo sapiens to become a completely nonrational entity. If such illness exists, whosoever has it of course has no rights, but I am not under the impression that it exists. And you have not offered an alternative ETHICAL basis for rights that supports your position, certainly not one with any logic. You have simply tossed up the constitution, not even a well understood version of it at that, and claimed that it proved your position- but you see, the debate, is about what SHOULD BE illegal. The constitution is itself a law. It cannot establish what SHOULD BE illegal, only what is. You need to dig deeper than that.