abortion

I accept this. My opponent takes the BOP in an attempt to fulfill it presents three main arguments which I will show below: 1. Innocence P1. All unborn are babies. P2. All unborn are innocent C. Killing unborn innocent babies is wrong 2. Pregnancy is a contract (keep in mind they imply many of these claims) P1. If you have sex you must accept the consequences, pregnancy P2. You had sex. C. You must accept pregnancy 3. The gift of a child P1. A child is a gift C. No abortion I will now refute these claims. 1. The innocence argument P1. All unborn are babies Throughout this debate, I am not even going to argue the humanity of the unborn, rather I am going to argue that not all unborn are babies. But, how exactly is a zygote human? For the first two weeks of pregnancy the "baby" is little more than a clump of cells. (1) Its not until week 20 that the central nervous system is fully developed (1). You cannot define a clump of cells as a person or else your defining flakes of dead skin as people to. An acorn is never defined as an oak tree, so why should a clump of cells be defined as a person? P2. Innocence I am not going to argue this. C. It is wrong to kill unborn innocent babies The conclusion does not follow because it relies upon the first two premises. 2. The contract argument P1. If you have sex you must accept responsibility I know ask the question, why is sexual intercourse a contract for pregnancy? It is not. People have the right to have non-procreative sex. (2, 3) Furthermore, the legality of birth control, in most countries, inherently shows people have this right. Consenting to sex does not mean you are consenting to get pregnant as it is a right to have non-procreative sex. If a person consents to non-procreative sex (they use contraceptives) then they are not consenting to have the child develop within them. So now the child is nothing more than an unwanted guest. This becomes clearer when you see "More than half of all the women who have an abortion are pregnant because of failed contraception" (4). Most abortions are a result of contraception failing creating an unwanted human. Since there was no consent for the creation of the human, the human is akin to being the product of rape. To further my point, simply acknowledging a risk does not mean implicit consent for the risk. Acknowledging sex may get you pregnant does not equal consent for the pregnancy. For example, if I drive a car on a rainy day does this mean I consent to a car accident which can cause harm to me and possibly kill me? Of course not. If an accident does occur all parties are allowed to call 911 to mitigate the effects of the accident. Life is dangerous and almost anything we do has the potential for danger, man acknowledges this but, man does not consent to danger. Why is it that in no other circumstance, other than abortion, do people argue taking the risk equals consent for the damages and the waiving of the right to mitigate these damages? You may argue my example is not natural, so therefore, pregnancy should continue unabated by medical intervention. But, then you must also argue other natural things such as disease must be allowed to run their course without treatment, disease is natural and if by having sex you are consenting to pregnancy why wouldn't touching a toilet seat be consenting to whatever disease may be present on the toilet seat? If you argue against this then, your premise regarding abortion is misogynist and only seeks to unequally render the health and bodily integrity of those who can get pregnant meaningless and not the population as a whole. In other words, your argument is sexist. P2 + C The rest of this argument fails to show why abortion should be illegal as it relies upon P1. 3. The "gift" of an unborn child I have one thing to say, if a child is such a gift why do abortions occur? Simply put, many people feel the unborn are not a gift. Now I present my own argument. C1. Abortion to save a woman's life Let me give you a hypothetical situation (advocated by Judith Jarvis). "A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own." A doctor now tells you that you will die. The person in question has the right to unplug themselves in order to save their life. When applied to a pregnant woman, does the woman have the right to have an abortion (unplug themselves) to save their life? A woman may defend themselves against the threat posed by the unborn. 1. http://tips-getting-pregnant-info.com... 2. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 (decision) 3. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972 (decision) 4. pregnancy.adoption.com/pregnant/common-reasons-people-choose-abortion.html 5. http://spot.colorado.edu...