Abortion

Sorry, this took longer to revise than I thought. Shall we go on?As agreed to legal is defined as something that is allowed and permitted by law. This is important because if something is illegal then there won't be ANY exceptions to that rule, no situations will be fit for an abortion legally. The structure of my argument is three-fold. One will be dealing with the morality of the action itself, the second one will deal with special exceptions to which my opponent has somewhat conceded to and the third one will deal with how far legal actions can go. In order to win the debate my opponent must not only prove that there is no morally acceptable situation in which abortion is the answer but also that the best way to fight abortion is with legal constraints, he must defend ALL RESOLUTION CONDITION that I'll put forth. With that in mind, let us move on to the first section:MORALITYImagine this if you will: You've just finished your higher education and are free, you have perhaps a year to see the world and experience everything you have not already experienced. You want to love, be loved, be care free and enjoy life. This is a rather rational wish, isn't it? What are you going to do if I come along and lock the door and tell you that you are not allowed to go anywhere, that you cannot live your dreams to your fullest and chain you to your house. Would you consider me to be breaking your human rights? Of course I would be. You'd most likely sue me for breaking your freedom of life. You never had a chance to live your dreams. Did I violate your right? Is it morally correct of me to obligate you to abandon your dreams? Of course it isn't. But this is happening every day everywhere and we cannot deny that. But what if the “I” in this story is replaced with an infant. Is it still morally incorrect? Is it still morally correct to force a woman to abandon her life and dreams and force her to birth a child she does not want to have, essentially trying her to her house? No, the scenario in it's core is unchanged. It is her body and legally obligating her to having the child and denying her her right to choose is just as immoral as my first scenario. On what grounds? The rights of the unborn infant?Why is it so that my opponent will argue that the right of a random cluster of cells that have just as much independent life as a small part of your skin has more right than the mother? The cell cluster has no thoughts, it is not self-aware, it cannot think, does not have feelings, does not show signs of sentient life and is in no definition of the word more human than the bacteria in your intestine. Yet my opponent indirectly wishes to argue that it has priority, that it's rights are somehow “more important” than the rights of the mother who does show all signs of intelligent life, human emotions and the ability to be self-aware. What makes her rights so much lesser than the rights of the child? Since we cannot keep the human rights valid for both parents and children my opponent must answer the following question to win: Why is the unborn infant more worthy of human rights than the parent?A child is not a human any more than a blueprint is a house. it has all the potentials to be a house, but it isn't a house. demolishing an already built structure just so the blueprint gets a chance to be a house as well is absurd. Abortion, under con's set of arguments, is just as moral as violating human rights, so which would you rather choose?When is it “ok” to abort? Assuming that abortion becomes illegal in all cases: Will there be no exceptions? My opponent wishes that rape abortion is still legal. On what grounds? Why is that still legal? Is there in fact a difference?Be careful however: because I am going to tell you right now that this is a trick question: for I am going to use whatever you answer against you. There are a minuscule amount of answers that are fitting for rape-pregnancies that are not ALSO compatible with regular pregnancies. So, either my opponent finds a great reason for abortion in case of rape that does not fit at some level with a regular abortion or he falls from his case and fights that all abortions are illegal. This leads us to the first major contradiction in my opponents case. When we're not talking about rape a fetus has potential, it might live a great life, could be given away to an orphanage and has rights that must not be violated, its murder. But when the child is a result of rape, it has no potential? What makes this child right less? It had nothing to do with the rape, it's not it's fault. Why should it be discriminated against when some other fetus has all the rights in the world? Does the history of the father make this child any worse? Is it evil and deserves to die because it has a rapist father? It's the same child, it has the same rights, abortion is not an exception. Any set of logic that my opponent can find to protect or diminish rape infants will also hold for infants that are not a rape result if my opponent cannot defend the “paradox” that a child that is the result of rape has less human rights than any other child, he has lost the debate.But we still have an unaddressed issue: My female friend. See, I have a female friend. She unfortunately isn't perfectly healthy: and should not try and complete a pregnancy since doing so will most likely result in her health worsening or she simply dies from physical trauma. Let's assume she becomes pregnant. Are you to expect it from her to actually carrying trough with her pregnancy and risking her life? If the government forces her to finish it and she dies. The government is now guilty of the murder of a young woman that could have been avoided. Why should she not have an abortion? It is literally the only method for her, the only option that does NOT result in a bad ending. What does my opponent want to do for my friend? Is legal banning a solution?The law is meant to be broken. This isn't something that is generally supported or correct, but it is still so. The harder we press to ban a certain matter the more active it gets. You can look at drug abuse and prostitution to see that. It's still peaking again and again, underground it flows like water and we cannot stop it, we cannot monitor it. Whatever is banned becomes black market material. Abortion is no different. Abortion is LEGAL and still over 700.000 die from ILLEGAL operations[1]. If abortion is banned illegal operations will only increase, will only spiral out of control. When something is legal we have a chance to monitor it, tax it and make sure safety regulations and health conditions are always met to protect the mother for instance. with abortion becoming black we can no longer monitor it, it becomes hidden, unsafe and dangerous. Think clamping the limbs and dragging them out is bad? Sticking a metal coat hanger inside the genitalia of the woman and scraping the child out is much worse and the child STILL dies. We now have a third condition:If my opponent cannot explain how illegal operations can be dealt with in a safe, efficient manner, he has lost the debate.I'll cover adoption in my next round: I just ran out of room for now. I hope you see that abortion is in fact moral when we shift the perspective. The mother is in danger, she might have been raped, her human rights are on the line, she is looking at a nearly $241,080 expense and a lifetime of unwanted commitment. And for what? The rights of a few cells that are not humans in any other sense apart from the potential to become one later on. Because the condom broke, the pill failed, a rape. That is a big fall for a small reason. Choosing between human rights isn't easy, but I hope you all see that the rights of those born should be greater than those that are not born, and are little more than just a blueprint to a house. 1) http://www.genderacrossborders.com......2)http://money.cnn.com...