abortion

Rebut and Challenge 1. You can call abortion killing, You can't call it 'murder. ' It is a legal term versus a moral term. 2. Zygotes are 'human' by definition. The problem is, Human bodies are also 'human' by definition. It is not 'human' we value, But 'personhood. ' If someone pulls the plug on a human body that is being kept alive on life support, But that body is brain dead do you consider it killing? If you say no, Your position is inconsistent. If you say no, It isn't the 'human' aspect you care about, But the brain. If you care about the brain you should be fine with abortions before the brain is developed. If you say yes, Then your position is at least consistent. The problem is I have no idea what 'death' means to you. Where do you draw this line? People's hearts stop beating all the time and we restart them. We transplant every human organ I can think of except for the brain. Do you say people are dead when their bodies decay? If you don't answer these questions you are conceding the debate to me. You have to answer this. There is no reason the line for life should differ from the line of death. This is the most consistent position I have been able to understand. This challenge will show if you are consistent or not. After answering, You have to convince the audience of why your position of valuing 'human' is superior to my position of valuing 'personhood' in order to win the debate. If you wish to go a step further, Explain to me how my view that a zygote that has not developed a brain yet is not simply a human cadaver is false. My arguments cont: 3. Practical Implications of Banning Abortion Having a child in high school, Or during college, Or before your finances in order can be disastrous. This leads to single motherhood, Being poor, And destroying your personal career. All of these are negatives that effect the mother and the child. The bodily changes during pregnancy can be disastrous. Not everyone can afford to take weeks off of work. Olympic athletes may have contraceptive failures. Are you saying the moment they've been working towards their whole lives should be denied because of this? By denying women the ability to choose when to have their children, You are in fact killing the children they would otherwise have in the future. If a woman is allowed to fulfill her career, She may have 3 well-off kids rather than the 1 poor kid she would have if forced to carry the child. Poor children are more likely to commit crime, Be less educated, And have more sex in less protected ways, Resulting in even more abortions. Abortion bans actively cause this. Again, If something has justification it cannot be called 'convenience. ' SOLUTIONS As I said earlier, Any responsible debate on abortion should include solutions that both parties can agree upon. I wish to know my opponent's position on these potential solutions that we should, Theoretically, Both agree on. 4. Abstinence only Sex Ed vs full in-depth sex ed. Abstinence only education, A form of education that opponents of abortion largely espouse, Has been objectively, Factually, Irrevocably proven to be ineffective at best, Damaging at worst. Alternatively, In countries that have implemented more in-depth sex ed classes, A direct link can be tied with lower teen pregnancy, Fewer STDs, Et cetera. Around 50% of all abortions are had because birth control failed. Condoms are not 100%. Imagine a world where instead of teaching children to just wait despite all of their emotions that play to the contrary we teach them that condoms fail more often than we'd like to think. Imagine a world where we use logical arguments with children. As a teacher who teaches children as young as 2 how to play classical music, I submit you will be surprised at how children react when given a modicum of respect and well-thought ideas. Some people, Laugh if you will, Still believe if you have sex in a hot tub that the female cannot get pregnant. They believe pulling out is an excellent form of birth control failing to understand precum in the slightest. They believe anal has a zero percent chance of pregnancy. This is the world of abstinence-only education. This change alone may stop many abortions. There is no reason this should not be agreed upon by both sides. No reason that someone who lets reason rule emotion could possibly accept. 5. Publicly Funded Contraception It has also been proven that for every dollar paid into public contraception (condoms currently typically) saves multiple dollars publicly by preventing the births of children most likely to go on welfare. This is again, Vastly preferable both economically and in regards to abortion. Imagine a world in which female could get access to forms of birth control that did not depend on their male sexual partners using a condom. How many males out there refuse to use condoms? Some forms of birth control are superior to condoms statistically in preventing pregnancy. I submit that this is proven. It is economically more efficient, And the outcomes for society and empowerment of women cannot be denied. Again, The anti-abortion crowd for some reason seems to not accept this, Calling it socialism, Calling it the government trying to enforce responsibility on people. This is the government saving money directly. The government doesn't force women to use this, It merely empowers them with a choice they can make that many cannot currently make. Call it socialism if you wish, But that is not an argument against a proven system. UHC would make this a reality immediately. Other anti-abortionists merely disagree with contraceptives on religious grounds. To them, The spread of aids in Africa is an acceptable part of proselytizing their religion. Someone who argues against contraception on religious grounds is rarely an individual who will accept logic over emotion. 6. Funding Artificial Womb research and funding orphan care This, Along with reducing the unwanted pregnancies via improving technology, Is the only solution to never allowing babies to be aborted. Instead of having an abortion, Females will have the zygote/fetus/etc removed from them, Implanted into an artificial womb, Who would then be born an orphan seeking adoption. With improvements to our adoption system, We may be able to find homes for all such births. Are there problems with the implementation of artificial wombs, And associated tech? Of course. Is it easy? No. Is it possible? I don't see why not. Why is our argument centered around what we will never agree upon, Arbitrary lines all around rather than partial solutions that are easily within reach, Easily agreeable by both sides, And a full solution that may be within reach in our lifetimes? To conclude, My opponent MUST address my challenge in #2 or I can give him no additional credit. If he is responsible, He will also address the potential solutions that we may both agree upon. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht