Abortion Should be Illegal in the U.S.

However, instead of giving your arguments in R2, you gave rebuttals to my arguments thus violating the rules set up in R1. Anyways, since I cannot post rebuttals to your arguments, I will give surrebuttals. Surrebuttal 1: Firstly, it is agreed upon that the fetus contains human DNA and 46 chromosomes thus is a human. However, the trait that is specific to a human fetus is the unique DNA composition that makes a fetus’ cells different from the mother’s or father’s cells. In addition, even if the fetus is taking nutrients from the mother, the term parasite is misleading. Claiming that a fetus is a parasite, you and I must be parasites since a parasite remains a parasite for life. Furthermore, a breastfed baby must be a parasite as well because it is taking nutrients from the mother. Above all, science says a parasite does not live off its own species [1]. As a result, your claim to a fetus being a parasite is wrong since you confirmed that the fetus and the mother are both humans. Arguing for genetic engineering is irrelevant to this debate. This debate is on abortion for naturally created humans not on human-made humans. Even so, what separates a skin cell from a zygote is the DNA. The skin cell will contain the same DNA from the human it came from. It is not a different human. Meanwhile, the zygote has a completely different DNA from everyone else. This is a unique human. Skin cells are part of a human, and a zygote is a human. If a fetus only becomes a person when it comes out of a womb, explain the San Francisco fetal surgery. The 23-week old fetus was taken out of the womb, repaired, and put back in the womb [2]. During that short time out of the womb, this fetus becomes a person according to you. However, once it is put back in the womb, does it lose its personhood? In addition, when does the Federal Government grant us personhood and why is personhood granted only for those who are capable? Slaves were not considered a full person by the government but as three-fifths of a person, and the handicapped are not capable of performing all the functions of a normal human. Above all, when do rights need to be given by the government? The Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” [3]. The government does not give rights because people already possess these rights. Since the fetus is a human and given the example that personhood cannot be defined by birth, the fetus possesses unalienable rights. [1] Surrebuttal 2: MLK once said in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail” that “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws [4]. ” Even if abortion is legal and is a law, it is an unjust law. Unjust is defined as “not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair [5]. ” By incorporating your anecdote on the immorality of abortion, people have the legal responsibility the overturn abortion. In addition, even though it is argued that people should stop overturning what is legal, slavery was legal until the ratification of the 13th amendment. In addition, Article 1, Section 2, “three-fifths of all other persons” was overturned as slaves were given their unalienable rights [6]. “Legally” the slaves are three-fifths of a person and it was Constitutional. As a result, your argument that personhood must be legal falls apart because it is clear that slaves were denied legal personhood. Likewise, fetuses do not need the government to grant personhood. Abortion is unconstitutional because the only argument for its constitutionality is the “right of personal privacy protected by the due process clause [7]. ” Nonetheless, the Due Process Clause also says to not “deprive any person of life [8][9]. ” Clearly, privacy is implied while life is enumerated. Since a fetus is a person, its life prevails over the right to privacy. Surrebuttal 4: A fetus is living inside the mother and gaining nutrition from her. However, some babies gain nutrition through breastfeeding. Given a situation in which the mother has no choice but breastfeed the child, the mother would be legally allowed to kill her baby because it is a parasite and it is depleting the nutrients from the mother. You have claimed a woman can legally kill if someone afflict some damage to her body. The question raised is: whose rights win? Are the rights of bodily autonomy or the right to life more important? Surrebuttal 5: Given that there is a time frame of 43 years to provide abortion all across the U. S. , abortion clinics have been growing too slow compared to other health clinics. In addition, abortion clinics claim that they provide other services but so do other clinics. Above all, more money is spent on abortion campaigns than other services to the poor. If pro-choicers advocate for the financially struggling getting a choice, how come $16.8 million is permitted towards advertisement for abortions while the poor receives no financial aid towards keeping their baby [10]. It is outrageous how abortion costs at least $300 for all people [11]. Not only does the poor not get to keep their baby, they have to pay fees to kill their child. Abortion exploits the poor and offers no choices or aid. Surrebuttal 6: The Emergency Contraceptives can prevent pregnancies by stopping fertilization [12]. However, if a pregnancy does occur, abortion should not be an option. Abortion does not make every child a wanted child. If there is abortion for cases of rape or incest, the fetus is not wanted because it is a disgrace, a reminder, and a burden to the mother. Above all, you claimed in response to argument 4 that “If she didn't want them, she would have gotten an abortion. ” Clearly, you stated that abortion is for a woman who does not want a child. How can you say, “every child is a wanted child” if you already said, “an unwanted child can be aborted of an unwanted child is a dead child” In addition, the man who committed the rape should be subject to punishment, not the fetus. The fetus is innocent and did not commit crimes. Now addressing the hypothetical situation of rape, even if the dreams of an individual are shattered or destroyed by rape, the anger and frustration should not be towards the fetus. Rather, start again or give the child to adoption. One of the quotes in Macbeth by Shakespeare is “what’s done cannot be undone [13]. ” What has happened cannot be reversed; abortion does not “unrape”. Surrebuttal 8: Argument 8 justifies the actions of making abortion illegal and can stand on its own. You have accepted the fact that making abortion illegal reduces abortions thus proving the point of making abortion illegal. SOURCES: [1]- . http://parasite.org.au... [2]- . http://articles.orlandosentinel.com... [3]- . http://www.archives.gov... [4]- . https://www.africa.upenn.edu... [5]- . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [6]- . http://www.archives.gov... [7]- . http://law.justia.com... [8]- . https://www.law.cornell.edu... [9]- . https://www.law.cornell.edu... [10]- . http://thinkprogress.org... [11]- . http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org... [12]- . http://ec.princeton.edu... [13]- . http://www.shmoop.com...