Abortion

"1. Sticking to the definition of life..." No, but they are dying a lot more actively - quite soon. An organism is simply a collection of one or more cells, nothing more. A foetus is simply a type of organism with interdependent parts. "2.. However as the law clearly states..." The fact the law contends a foetus a member of "species homo sapiens" is irrelevant. They as humans offer no discernible quality to recognise any rights. Human is merely a type of classification, the same process we subject all species to. It is merely a label of differences - a classification of biological discernment. This is why we must look at those qualities other than what is biological that separate us from other animals. Pure taxonomic differences mean nothing; it merely indicates that we are different, much like any other species is different from another. What is the basis for rights - what in essence distinguishes us again, is a philosophical question, not a biological one - and it is the use of a rational mind. "Would my opponent also argue that those in a coma ..." A comatose person clearly had prior rational faculties. How can you murder someone who is already brain dead? You can only (i) sustain an unnatural process through inaction or (ii) let a natural process occur i.e. complete death. It is not murder at all. To go back to your first analogy with the dead man - the cells may still be alive - but it is a purely mechanical life bereft of any single meaning. "To abuse a brain dead person would be a horror." If there is no capacity for recognition of anything what abuse occurs? You may have defilement of a family members respect. It is respect and traditions for states of existence - not laws that are relevant in that case. "How are newly born infants any more rational than what they were 8 hours before when they were a fetus?" Clearly they are not fully rational beings until several years of age, however once birth occurs it has 2 main implications - moral contract by the mother upon the actioning of birth i.e. By allowing its birth she enters a moral contract for its surival. Secondly the infant becomes a learning entity, by virtue which can only occur upon and after its birth. "I really think you should do some research .." I am fully aware of "what happens". Of course it must eat food - it is parasitic in nature, at best symbiotic. Again I am well aware that they hear. However it has no level of existence where this is meaningful (personality or rational) in any way. Biologically driven preferences are purely that. It is quite easy to condition biological organisms - it does not require a level of rational discernment at all. You may like to conjure a sense of awe or mystery or character to the experience but it is purely conditional in nature. "In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights..." The U.N. is also is rather vague about what a child is; going by its use of ages as definitional however, a child begins at birth. "The right to life is not only reserved to United States Citizens, but to humans in general..." I did note "complete" rights. Your illegal immigrant is not recognised the same amounts of rights as you yourself are - and he/she has most definitely already been born. "3. No I am not advocating ..." Your analogy is somewhat off. Smoking > Cancer <> Sex > pregnant That is where the analogy is. No where does the state enforce the cancerous person to die from that cancer. If you want this to be correctly analogous (enforce birth) then that would need to occur. So yes, getting pregnant is the risk factor - but that is where it stops. *Enforcing* a birth and 18 years of servitude to that at the personal cost of money, time, health and freedom - is not analogous nor right by any sense of the term. "Should a woman be "pressured from having sex.."" Completely meaningless as you have no access to that data at all. Secondly it is not analogous to the point you are making - those you question now would have had the choice to abort - it follows then that your sample would be overly biased. "Yes driving 100 miles ..." No one forces you to drive, correct. The state does not enforce you to murder the police. That is not a consequence of driving. Sex > Pregnant > state enforced birth <> Eye surgery> blinded(outcome not restriction)> =/= killing a doctor. And again for the next one. So no, you have not made any relevant point I can see. "4. My opponent further .." No I dealt with both. Both are fallible, both have valid reasons for non use, both should not be enforced upon pain of birth either implicitly or explicitly. "My opponent is assuming ..." Either getting pregnant is ghastly rare as you claim between all this contraceptive taking or it's not. The point is you are advocating implicitly that people will be required to go to these measures to ensure their non children don't get there before THEY WANT. You are forcing people to have babies and expect the adoptive parent's availability to increase? I doubt that. "I think it infringes on personal liberties the same as a filter for a cigarette "infringes on personal liberties"" You can buy filtered ones or papers to make your own. :P And since when did two wrongs make a right? "The liberties of the human are exactly what I am in favor of.." You contradict yourself you cannot advocate liberties by taking them away. Let us be clear again what you do advocate. Not only contraception but upon forced birth - on threat of presumably imprisonment for foeticide - the forestalling of one person's life for another. "Even upon birth the child does not have the full right to life" It refers to the fact that if you were to grant full life to a child it would quickly die of exposure and/or hunger etc. It is dependant therefore cannot have recognised the full right to life. "If you get pregnant..." Periods are not reliable measures by any rate of what is a good time to get tested. The timing is want to change due to both internal and external factors. A 3 week time period is as good as no warning at all.