Abortion

I thank Con for this debate. I will rebut Con's case, defend my own, and then provide some reasons to vote Pro. REBUTTALSC1I argued: "a cell, or even a group thereof, is not necessarily a lifeform. We cannot say that an embryo is a functionally independent human being, and therefore, we should not give the embryo the same rights as a functionally independent human being." Con provides a chronological laundry list of qualities a embryo/fetus develops. But this only serves to underscore my point. An embryo is not a fully functional human being until it has developed all of the biological capabilities of a fully functional human being (which means that it no long relies on its mother for waste excretion, antibodies, etc.) So, let's use Con's very own evidence here. In week 6, "arm and leg buds become visible." Well, it's clearly not a fully functional human being yet. In week 11, "tooth buds begin to form." Still not a fully functional human being. In week 15, "the skin is almost transparent." Still not a fully functional human being. In fact, it can take up until week 25, according to Con, for the fetus to begin to produce blood cells. Still not a fully functional human being.Con attempts to score rhetorical points here with his rather grandiose proclamation: "Just because the baby can't be independent doesn't mean it isn't alive!" In fact, it does mean the fetus isn't alive. Scientist believe that "[l]iving organisms also are thought to require a degree of biochemical autonomy, carrying on the metabolic activities that produce the molecules and energy needed to sustain the organism." [1] Unfortunately, a fetus is reliant on the mother for may of their crucial biochemical needs, including vital substrates and proteins. [2] Ultimately, this returns to what I said round one: "cell that is not functionally independent is not actually considered alive." Inasmuch as a fetus is not functionally independent, it fails to meet the definition of life. Con has failed to offer any evidence or analysis to show otherwise.Now let's move onto the polar bear example. By functionally independent, "not reliant on something else in terms of the way it functions." Sure, the polar bear cub is reliant on its mother to provide for it, but the cub's biological functionality is no longer reliant on the mother. The cub has its own organs, its own metabolism, its own excretory system, etc. When put very simply, its mother is not performing the cub's own functions for it. Therefore, the cub is alive, whereas the fetus is not. Moreover, Con totally drops this: "Born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others." This applies to the cub as well. If separated from its mother, the cub could be fed or cared for by another bear or by a person who happens to find it. However, a fetus cannot simply find a surrogate; it is totally reliant on its mother. Therefore, the cub is alive, the fetus is not.C2Con never challenges that living a life of prolonged suffering and pain is bad. Now, let's assume that the euthanasia candidate has an 8% chance of survival--only a miracle could save her. She has two choice: live the last few years of her life in excruciating pain clinging irrationally to the hope of survival, or to terminate her life with dignity and save herself years of suffering and degradation. Con is attempting to say that as long as there is any chance the child could have a great life, that abortion is wrong. Yet, the odds favor a miserable, horrid existence. The principle here is the same as with euthanasia--if suffering is bad, very likely suffering should be avoided when possible.Con's says that he's proven that foster cares aren't bad--but having offered no warrant to back this up, it's a hollow claim at best. Regardless, all I need to show is that it is possible that this scenario could occur in order to say that abortion should be legal in case it does occur. As it is possible that a similar situation could arise, this contention flows Pro.C3Con repeats what he said, perhaps not understanding my argument. Nevertheless, repeating his own statement is insufficient to rebut my attack against it. I pointed out that "[Con] wants parents to be responsible for their choices, then they are responsible for the child. Adoption...is a way to say, we cannot cope with our own creation, so we need to hand it off to someone else." Therefore, adoption is not taking responsibility for the child. The logical conclusion of this analysis is that "any adult who cannot afford to raise a child should not have sex" regardless of whether or not they are protected because there is always a risk.While not explicit, this is the implicit extension of Con's assertions. It is not logical, nor is it reasonable for this modern world.Again, this contradicts with his point regarding adoption, for reasons already stated ad nauseam. But moreover, I don't really need to win this point to win the debate.C4Con offers two more links. Firstly, just providing the links and saying "here, read these," Con's seems to be circumventing the character limit. But this is unimportant. Even if we grant that abortion has medical risks, it doesn't matter, because Con drops that women can knowingly consent to the risks before undergoing an abortion. Thus, the fact that abortion is risky is immaterial; many medical procedures entail risks, but we can undertake them anyway so long as valid consent is provided.MY CASEC1Ex. 1: A heart transplant is extremely risky. You want to discontinue abortions because they pose risks to patients, but yet you're advocating for a non-medically necessary heart transplant, just to avoid the possibility of abortion? Frankly, that is an incredibly extreme view to take, when an abortion is likely less perilous for her than the heart transplant.Ex. 2: It doesn't matter how many mothers it has killed, as long as it could kill someone. As long as this possibility exists, self-defense abortions need to be permitted in case a life-threatening situation does occur. Moreover, "if caught early enough" is frankly insufficient. If it's not, then the right to self-defense is triggered.Ex. 3: The medical team attempted to expand her contracting airways, which failed. Since Con doesn't tell us what this miracle tool is, and since a team of certified medical doctors found no other way to treat her, I would be inclined to believe the mother was justified in exercising her right to self-defense via aborting the fetus.C2And Con drops this whole contention...He says it is somehow invalidated because it is not a "real life scenario," but that is a fundamental misunderstanding of how I am using it. I am using this example to demonstrate a philosophical principle. By using a hyperbolic hypothetical, I can very clearly make the point that I am trying to make: and that is that there is no reason why the woman should be forced to live with a violation of her privacy for 9 months, because the baseline is arbitrary.VOTING ISSUES1 - An embryo/fetus is not the same thing as a fully developed human being, and so it should not receive the same rights as one2 - An embryo//fetus is not a lifeform, and therefore lacks the rights that a living entity might acquire3 - Even if it were alive, self-defense justifications may permit aborting the embryo/fetus4 - The Rape Exception permits abortion--this was 100% dropped by ConFor all of these reasons, I ask you to VOTE PRO! Thank you!SOURCES1 - http://www.scientificamerican.com...2 - http://www.cs.unm.edu...