Abortion and infanticide are morally equivalent.

Had the debate resolution read "Some forms of abortion are morally equivalent to infanticide" I would be hesitant to take on this debate. Fortunately for me, that is not the case. As Con, it is up to me to demonstrate how there are some cases of abortion that are not equivalent to infanticide. In this debate, I will be launching a three-pronged attack on my opponent, one argument from a neutral perspective, another argument from a PRO-LIFE perspective, and yet a third argument from a PRO-CHOICE perspective to successfully demonstrate just how flawed my opponent's illogical resolution is. =============================================================================== Neutral argument-Death of women: Therapeutic abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy before fetal viability in order to preserve maternal health. (1) A therapeutic abortion can be performed to save the life of a mother that would otherwise die in childbirth. The reason this form of abortion is moral is the same reason killing in self defense is moral. If someone or something is going to kill you, then it is not only your right, but it is your moral obligation to do anything in your power necessary to prevent your death, even if it means killing your causer of death. If someone picks up a weapon and is going to kill you, what is the moral thing to do? Kill the attacker? Or simply wait for your attacker to kill you? The answer is obvious. The same thing applies to abortion, if a woman needs an abortion due to the fact that she will most probably die in childbirth, than it is not only her right, but it is her moral obligation to get an abortion to save her own life. It doesn't matter who, what, or how someone or something is going to kill you, be it intentional or natural. If something is going to kill you, KILL IT FIRST! This form of abortion is moral, while infanticide is not, since the baby is already borne and is no longer a threat to the mother. =============================================================================== PRO-LIFE argument-Origins of human life/personhood. One can logically conclude when human life begins by inverting the time when human life ends. Human life ends when brain activity ends. If the heart stops, sometimes a defibrillator can be used, if arms or limbs are severed, a person can still live. However, once the brain dies, there's no coming back. If the person hood of a human ends when brain activity ends, then logically, the person hood of a human begins when brain activity begins. In addition, brain activity is the first possible start for sentience, which is what most people define person hood as in the first place. Since human life/personhood begins when brain activity begins, then logically, abortions performed before brain activity is present is morally acceptable. Infanticide is not morally acceptable, since brain activity is already present. Therefore infanticide is NOT morally equivalent to infanticide. =============================================================================== PRO-CHOICE argument- State of leeching, and state of dependence. The fetus is in a state of leeching off the mother's body without the mother's permission, while an infant does not leech off the mother's body without her permission. If I needed a bone marrow transplant and only one other person on the entire planet had a perfect bone marrow match, and I needed her bone marrow to save my life, do I have the right to forcibly take her bone marrow? Of course not! The same thing applies to a fetus, even though the fetus is a person, it does not have the right to leech off other people's nutrients without their permission. Objection#1) the analogy is flawed because the mother caused the fetus to be in a state of dependence to begin with, therefore the mother is obligated to give nutrients she can spare to the fetus. Rebuttal#1) it may be true that the mother caused the fetus to be in a state of dependence, but had the mother not caused the fetus to be dependent on her, the fetus would have never existed in the first place. Objection number 1 would work if I caused damage to someone and because of that damage, that person needed a bone marrow transplant, then he would have the right to take my bone marrow without my permission, however this is not the case with abortion, the mother caused no damage to the fetus, in fact, she did just the opposite, she brought the fetus into a state of being, from non-existence. If a doctor performs an operation that saves a persons life, and because of that operation, the person will need a bone marrow transplant in 5 years, can the patient now force the doctor to give up his bone marrow without the doctors permission? Of course not! It's about damage, not causality. The doctor had causality of dependence on his patient, yet he is still not obligated to donate his bone marrow. Likewise, the Doctor did not have damage on his hands, and therefore he is exempt from giving up his bone marrow to his patient. The same reasoning applies for abortion. The mother has causality of dependence on the fetus, but she did not have damage. In fact, she did just the opposite of damage to the fetus, she brought it into being. Therefore objection #1 does not give the fetus the right to forcibly take nutrients from the mother's body without the permission of the mother, anymore than the patient has the right to forcibly take nutrients from the doctor in the case listed above. Objection # 2) Your analogy is flawed. Abortion cuts up little babies; it doesn't just take them out of the womb to sever the nutrients from the mother. It directly attacks the fetus that is dependent. Rebuttal #2) This is somewhat true. Some forms of abortion specifically target the fetus, rather than just severing the umbilical cord. I will concede the point that these forms of abortions are wrong. However, not all forms of abortions do that. Many abortions simply cut the umbilical cord, thus severing the flow of nutrients from the mother to child, until the child suffocates. Other forms deliver the baby prematurely fully intact. These forms of abortion are supported by my analogies, and thus, should be permissible. Objection#3) But the mother agreed to have sex! Thus she agrees to take full responsibility of the consequences of her actions. And if having a baby that is dependent on her body is one of the consequences, so be it! Rebuttal #3) Imagine a hypothetical scenario if you will: There is a park, notoriously filled with criminals. These criminals have one special objective: to kidnap women and force them to undergo a bone marrow transplant operation. If a woman knows this can happen, and still chooses to take a walk in that park, does that make it right for the criminals to force her to donate nutrients from her body? Just like sex, the woman knew the possible consequences of her actions; she knew the risks of walking in that park. However, that does not make it right for another person to forcibly /use her body any way he/she wishes without her permission. Infanticide is not supported by these analogies since the mother is giving nutrients (milk) from her body with her permission, and if she does not want to, she can give the infant up for adoption, this does not hold true for abortion. Therefore, abortion is not morally equivalent to infanticide. You, as pro, have provided me with no argument for round 1, and as such, the burden of proof is still on your absolute statement of abortion being morally equivalent to infanticide is reasonable. (1)http://www.emedicine.com...