Induced Abortions for Personal Reasons ought to be Illegal in the United States

I allowed my opponent an additional 1.5 days or so to respond. Thus, see the comments section positioned below for their arguments. "There is a difference between one organism changing and the other case (i. e. the fetus) being formed by sexual reproduction creating a new organism separate from the two contributors whereas the example of Spiderman would still be the same organism only altered. " One could argue that a sperm cell is only an altered normal human cell, and therefore that the resulting zygote is only an altered human cell. Therefore, this would contradict, again, my opponent's reasoning of when a human is deserving of rights. However, I do not plan to elaborate too much on this specific sub-argument, as it does not need to be won for me to win this debate. "One might assume from the phrase 'all men were CREATED equal' that these rights began at the point of creation. Notice it doesn't say 'all men were born equal' or that 'all men were developed equal'. From that phrase I think we can infer that they believed these rights to start at the point of creation, not birth, or full development. " Again, my point is that the "point of creation," so to speak, is the main point of contention in this debate, seemingly. As well, their intention could still differ from the current intentions presented, and therefore, one cannot infer such a thing. Thirdly, even if it was their intention, a single quote from hundreds of years ago is not infallible. One must analyze the situation at the current to know for sure what is indeed right and most logical. Fourthly, even if one were to infer that "all men were created equal" directly, it would still apply to my case, as my argumentation entails that, at the point of diploid life (again, desired, but not always feasible), natural rights identified in Locke's Social Contract are not yet possessed. Therefore, all people were indeed created equal, as in each having no natural rights prepossessed. Being parasitic on different species is irrelevant to this debate. I, however, will concur, for this debate, that induced abortions due to "parasitism" (on the same species), unless for self-defense (demonstrated to be irrelevant in this debate), are not pertinent to either my opponent or myself being victorious in this debate. However, such does not invalidate the rest of my argumentation. "Natural rights should begin at the point when a new human is created, which most logically would be after the diploid number is obtained. At this point the DNA is a new set completely different from the parents and can be deemed a new human. " By this reasoning, however, every piece of meat one eats originated from a diploid animal. However, my opponent has claimed that it is ethical to eat meat. So, in essence, my opponent says it is fine to eat meat from developed animals, but not fine to terminate an underdeveloped fetus. This is seemingly contradictory. I have already explained in previous rounds that animals should be deserving of inherent rights, just as humans. The determining factor ought to be sentience, as defined, not differing DNA sets. Otherwise, even vegetarians would be unjust, eating parts of plants for food. Many plants are diploid, containing differing DNA from its parents. The difference is, plants do not have cerebral cortexes, distinguishing them from other sentient beings of life. Vegetarianism, therefore, is just. The same applies to underdeveloped (i. e. prior to cerebral cortex development) fetuses. It would be more reasonable to eliminate induced abortions due to personal reasons only after the point of sentience. "However with the fetus the potential for life is there because the child is forming. " "In the other you are guaranteed there will [be life]. " "Sentience shouldn't be the indicator; however, once a new DNA is created and a new life is formed with that human DNA (the point at the end of the diploid cell) it should as it is defined by dictionary terms be considered a new human and thus should not be able to terminated. " Indeed, in a fetus the potential for further development of life is of course there. However, this potential is irrelevant. This same "potential" also resides in individual sex cells. Though there might be more potential in the diploid zygote, such a potential is also irrelevant, insofar as that potential is quite difficult to quantify. Seemingly, one could argue that many, many things have potential for something, but something else may have the potential to have that potential, making somewhat of a conundrum. The potential for developed life in this debate is irrelevant. Therefore, one ought to focus on what is, not what can be. Secondly, there are no guarantees that there will indeed be life in the zygote. Outside factors and resources are necessary. For example, nutrition would be considered an outside source. Without it, the zygote would not be able to develop within adequate parameters. Thus, it is surely possible that the zygote, intrinsically, might not develop into further life. Next, sentience would seem to be the most reasonable place to apply natural rights as proposed in Locke's Social Contract. The dictionary terminology of what a human is, then, is irrelevant for this debate. A human being, as for its definition, is largely arbitrary, based on of what one considers to be their own discretion. As well, if I may remind my opponent, the main point of contention resides in not when a human life begins, but when natural/inherent rights ought to initiate. "I believe we limited this debate to humans, per the definitions defining man as members of the homo sapien species. Let's get back to the topic at hand. " However, analogies similar to the ones I have drawn up are essential for comparisons in debate. They also help to clarify ethical guidelines and parameters current placed by society (or in some ways, contradict them). ________ ________ In conclusion, logic dictates that natural rights ought to be placed at the point of sentience. Therefore, with this determination intact, I have successfully negated the initial resolution. Instead of making induced abortions for personal reasons illegal in the United States, they should, under the proclaimed guidelines of this debate, perhaps be illegal after the point of sentience. Yet, this point being later on during progressive development, abortions for personal reasons ought to be legal prior to that stage. The right to life is desired, but not always feasible. I would also like to remind voters to read through the debate and hopefully explain why they cast their vote the way they did.