Abortion

Abortion is "Murder"."A sperm cell cannot contribute to society, feel pain, or become a future human itself."A sperm cell CAN become a future human. Not by itself, but it certainly can.And, like I said, a fetus contributes nothing to society either. Human beings contribute to society, and you've already conceded a fetus is not a human being. How many more times shall you talk in circles?"Again, a sperm cell does nothing but fertilize the egg, it is not a human in development. A fetus is a human in development."Yes, you've said this at least eight-hundred times by now. A fetus is not a human being, but in the developing stage to become a human being. Again, there is no reason to grant things which are not humans the rights of humans."If a women has a right to her own body, shouldn't a baby have the right to live. By aborting them they don't even get to decide. It's a bit hypocritical."What's hypocritical is granting a parasite more rights than the woman who's carrying it in her body. Also, please choose your terminology more carefully in the future; a fetus is not a baby. A fetus is in the developing stages in becoming a baby human being.By aborting them, we not only eliminate their future right to choose existence or non-existence, we eliminate their future cognitive ability to even comprehend it is existing. Terminating a fetus is hardly more vile than terminating a fly. Yes, a fly responds to its environment and naturally tries to avoid being smacked, but it cannot fathom its own existence. Everything it does is a reflex. It does not have the brain functionality necessary to realize it is existing. It's not conscious or sentient, and neither is a fetus."This is my opponent's argument:P1: A fetus is not a human.P2: Because it is not a human, it does not have the right to live.C: It is morally correct to kill a fetus."Needless to say, I never said that a fetus does have the right to live on the basis that it is a non-human. I trust to audience to recognize when I am being horribly strawmaned [sic?]. Nor did I say it's morally "correct" or "right" or "good" to kill a fetus. But it is morally acceptable. It is definitely not, by contrast, morally apprehensible or wicked. I would argue that the issue of terminating an unwanted pregnancy is amoral (that is, neither morally good nor bad, as it is not an issue of the principles of moral behavior).After all, why is it morally wrong to kill a human being? Just because it's a human being? No. Because it's a sentient and conscious creature. It feels, it breaths, it experiences happiness and sadness. It exists and it knows it exists and it WANTS to exist.Terminating something that is technically "alive" but otherwise nothing more than a lump of matter, unaware of its existence, unaware of its "life" is neither morally good nor bad. Though forcing a woman to keep this lump of matter in her body while it grows and potentially causes harm to her is unquestionably morally wrong.She just shouldn't have gotten pregnant."Neither is a fetus a parasite. A parasite is always a different species from the species it is living on."Taken from biology.com, "Parasite: An organism that obtains nourishment and shelter on another organism. Parasites can cause harm or disease to their host. They are generally much smaller than their hosts." [1] Where, Con, in this definition (or any other definition in the universe outside of your imagination) does it say a parasite must be of a different species than its host?Notice how my opponent completely drops my points about equipment failing due to unforeseeable circumstances, rape, and when during a menstrual cycle a woman is fertile (probably because he realized he was wrong). Extend these arguments and refutations.It's not the parasite's fault, man."Again, a tumor cannot become a human."This response is quite telling, indeed. Notice just how my opponent defends the removal of a tumor. It's okay because it can't become a human–not because it can potentially kill its host. I suppose, then, if a tumor COULD become a human being, it would be morally wrong to remove it despite the fact it can cause severe harm or even death in its host?"The chance of a women to die in childbirth is very little. The chance of a new human being is very high."The odds of a woman dying during childbirth are about 12 in 100,000. [2] Admittedly quite low, but it does happen. Women should not be forced to play Russian Roulette in this way, despite how low the odds are.Furthermore, there are other complications that can arise during pregnancy, such as high blood pressure. [3] As I said in my last round (which my opponent chose to ignore), this can lead to heart attacks or strokes later in the pregnancy. The only risks a woman is likely to suffer is not just during childbirth, but during almost the entire process. It can feel pain."By 13 1/2 to 14 weeks, the entire body surface, except for the back and the top of the head, are sensitive to pain."So this study (which occurred in 1980) claims that a fetus is sensitive to pain by about 14 weeks, not 8 weeks. What about abortions that take place before this time? My opponent's argument cannot possibly object to abortions occurring earlier in pregnancy than 13 1/2 weeks."If that is the case, is abortion painful? Let's look at some testimonies[...]"Most of the "pain" my opponent's testimonies refer to is guilt, which would not be a problem if people like my opponent did not demonize abortion so adamantly. It's like when Bill O'Reilly claimed homosexuals should stay in the closet for many reasons, one being that they are treated worse than heterosexuals. Naturally, it wouldn't be a problem if people like you didn't make it a problem.A human is good for the economy.My opponent totally drops this argument. Extend arguments and refutations.My Opponent's Sources"My sources are not biased. www.abortionfacts.com is a highly trusted site."Yeah, highly trusted by pro-life fundies. Members of the audience, I challenge you (nay, DARE you) to look at this website and not laugh at the sentiment of its unbiased and objective outlook on abortion. There is a "Baby Hall of Fame" for god's sake with pictures of babies and little captions that read "I was told the best choice was abortion...they were wrong!" and "The baby's father begged the mom to abort the baby, but she wouldn't".Your claim that this website can offer any medical information worth taking seriously can be classified as nothing less than either a delusion or a futile ploy to trick the audience. Mark off conduct for all I care; I refuse to allow this intellectual dishonesty to mar the sanctity of one of my debates.My Sources[1] http://www.biology-online.org...;[2] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...;[3] http://www.pregnancy-info.net...;