Late Term Abortion

To begin I have a clarification from my side as well. First, late term abortion can be justified: for example, medical emergency such as aggressive cancer diagnosis requiring immediate treatment. That is being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils that reasonable non-absolutist people recognize. In your clarification, you state that you will not argue the morality of the issue. I argue that you cannot reasonably debate this issue without discussing the morality. A discussion of legal rights, especially with regards to this issue, cannot be neatly separated from morality which leads me into your second point. You state that you will primarily argue that the law exists to protect rights – not to dictate moral issues which involve no violations of rights. This is a moral relativism argument. Again, I will argue, with regards to late term abortion morality plays a central role in the issue especially when viewed through the prism of moral relativism. Finally, I will make a brief argument why late term abortions (with implied reasonable exceptions for medical emergencies) should be illegal based on existing law. Pro states that she will not argue the morality of delaying a late term abortion. She also implies that the law and rights are separate from morality. This argument fails because many rights are based solely on morality. Morality simply cannot be separated from the issue because we don't want to discuss or acknowledge such things. For example, what if a child, born to poor parents, had a severe mental defect but was otherwise healthy? Why not simply terminate that life? The child will not serve humanity in any way and will in effect be a drain on society during his or her lifetime. The medical costs for this child will come from the state, which is using my monies collected through a tax. This state sponsored funding violates my rights in a materialistic society devoid of a moral code because I am being compelled to pay for something that I had nothing to do with and will provide no benefit to me. In this case, western society does not kill the child simply because it is wrong to kill the child. In a society without a moral code it would certainly not be to our advantage to allow the child to live. The defenseless child in this example has legal rights that society has granted the child based solely on a moral code. This moral code can be based on religion, philosophy, or some generally accepted social standard but it is indeed a moral code and it is present in foundation of law and cannot be separated. Rights are often derived solely from moral standards. Pro's "rights separate from morals" argument is moral relativism. In moral relativism everyone's personal morality is equally valid. Your viewpoint about any issue is as valid as mine. Ultimately there are: no standards; no norms; no taboos; no good or evil. Using this system and the example child, I can argue that the child's right to exist, in a moral relativism reality, would be less than my right not to be taxed for his support. In following the tenants of moral relativism you ultimately find out that might makes right in this system. In a system where there is no standard of right or wrong - ultimately, strength is right and weakness is wrong. If not wanting to pay for the defenseless child is as valid as the desire to exist that the defenseless child has then might wins and the child's desire to live loses. These same arguments can be extended to a viable but unborn child who actually has the potential to contribute to society. Using the principles of moral relativism (ultimately might makes right) – shouldn't the unborn but viable fetus have greater rights than the born but severely deformed child due to potential? Would my opponent argue that the born but deformed should have not have rights and recommend immediate termination of that life? Now with respect to the legalities concerning late term abortion, If an argument can be made that a child born with major mental defects has rights (and in western society the child does), then why shouldn't an unborn fetus have rights? My opponent argues that "the law exists to protect rights – not dictate moral issues which involve no violation of rights. " The question inevitably becomes, whose rights are we referring to? The mother's or the child's? In the 1973 Roe ruling the Supreme Court ruled that the state had no compelling interest in protecting potential human life until viability, defined at 24 weeks. In the 1992 Casey ruling the court reduced that to 22 weeks. These rulings imply that the state recognizes and confers fetal rights based on potential. Additionally, fetal homicide laws exist – you kill a pregnant Mom and you get charged with two murders. [1] These laws certainly imply that killing a fetus is murder. Based on these rulings and laws I argue that western society does not accept moral relativism and that late term abortions should be illegal. [1] . http://civilliberty.about.com...