Abortion

Thank you for your response 1. This is an appeal to authority. What the masses believe is not always correct. Just because someone believes a higher power exists does not mean it exists. 2. "If there is no connection with a mother and a fetus, then there s no connection between a woman and her body in general." This is a non-sequitor. My opponent makes two assertions which are completely unrelated. One deals with a separate entity completely dependant on the woman. The other deals with the woman who is completely dependent upon herself. "Plus many women THINK they have legit reasons for abortion." This is an unsubstantiated claim which should be ignored as such. My opponent provides no reason why this matters. "My opponent fails to acknowledge that a male does not have the same connection with a fetus like a female has and, therefore, which may be the reason why he feels this way about abortion." But, there are quite obviously a number of females who feel the same. Take Mrs. Judith Jarvis for example, my case is based upon her work. I thought this was obvious… 3. "Imagine living the rest of your life in regret and dramatized when you see babies and pregnant women." There are major psychological and physiological issues stemming from pregnancy as well. 4. So can the medical issues arising from natural pregnancy and birth. They can last a lifetime as well. 5. My opponent never really addresses any of my points in this contention. They inadvertedly contradict themselves. If the person is not consenting to become pregnant by engaging in sexual intercourse, then how can you argue they have any responsibility? Simply arguing because they had sexual intercourse is not enough to give them responsibility for another entity. Unless there is specific consent given by the woman, the fetus has no right to utilize the woman's body for its own needs. As I stated above, "life is dangerous and almost anything we do has the potential for danger, man acknowledges this but, man does not consent to danger. Why is it that in no other circumstance, other than abortion, do people argue taking the risk equals consent for the damages and the waiving of the right to mitigate these damages?" Why do you have the right to cure yourself of a disease but, not to have an abortion? If you touch the toilet seat you must be responsible for anything you "picked up". The acknowledgment of a risk does not equate to consent for that risk. My opponent basically concedes this point, "having sex does NOT consent to becoming pregnant, but it is a risk that's being taken". (Also, bacteria are living things. Bacteria can cause disease). 6. I misread my opponent's point. I apologize for that. This is still the minority of adoption agencies. This also does not at all weigh abortion as immoral. 7. A right given by the Constitution is the highest legal right a person can have. I am not arguing age of consent laws are against the constitution. I am merely arguing that those who have sexual intercourse are allowed to have sex without procreating. 8. My opponent concedes that the fetus is not a human being. My opponent has not shown why the fetus has the inherent right to live. In my case, I have shown a fetus does not. 9. There are many negative effects of pregnancy. Should that to be illegal? If everything that caused harm to man was illegal, we would be dead right now. I merely say that as a surgical procedure there could be physical harm to the mother. I will not even argue medical procedures never cause harm. But, pregnancy to causes harm. My opponent also concedes that abortion is permissible if only to save the mother. My case: a defense. Rockstar Analogy My opponent states, "Like I said before- the rockstar is a STRANGER. The fetus is a part of them, the result of the actions they wish to engage in. The fetus is their responsibility, not the rockstar." The point of the hypothetical was to say why does one entity have the right to use another entity for its own good? My opponent really does not refute this premise. And as I stated above (which, I may add, went basically uncontested), "the person(s) in need do not live because it is their moral right to demand what is not theirs but, because of the kindness of the donor. In the same way the unborn does not develop into a human being because of its inherent right to what is not theirs but, instead, because of the kindness of the mother. In all of these situations, a person is contingent upon another person. This makes their right to the bare necessities of life invalid simply because what they need to live infringes upon what is not and would never be theirs except for the niceness of another human being." The points of the hypotheticals were to attack the premise that the unborn have an inherent right to live. Why should I be able to unplug myself from the rockstar if the mother cannot "unplug" herself from the fetus. My opponent says the unborn is the mother's responsibility. But, they never fully explain why this is, why do they have responsibility? Is it because they had sexual intercourse? This implies an inherent sexual contract which is false. Organ Donation Analogy My opponent states that, "[PRO] imply[s] that it is okay for people to do something but run away from the consequence without being responsible. Great way to look at life." Now I am going to assume they were being sarcastic in their last sentence (sarcasm does not do well through text by the way), even so, fine, it may be a bad way to live life, but, that does not make it morally wrong. Furthermore, my opponent never explicitly explains how they are responsible seeing how they conceded that having sex does not equal consent for pregnancy. (If I want to take this at face value my opponent just conceded the point…) My opponent goes on saying "[PRO] claims I "cited a contract", which I never did. I simply believe sex is an adult action that has many consequences that can follow it, especially if people are irresponsible." You inadvertedly did cite a sexual contract. You keep saying the mother is responsible for the unborn because she had sex. Why else could this be without an inherent contract (which is wrong)? My last analogy (starts with "Now let me continue, let us say I am dying from a deadly disease") This has not even been addressed by my opponent. In conclusion, while sex can have consequences. These consequences are not inherently accepted or consented to by the act of sexual intercourse. The mother does not have to accept the burden of the unborn unless she consents to do so. The fetus does not have a right to live because their life is dependent upon the mother and thus, the mother's niceness.