Abortion

**Thank's to pro for the ever so passionately presented points. I) RebuttalsA. On Constitutionality1. “First off my opponent consistent that it is in fact the WOMANS CHOICE not any law maker or raspiest choice”-Correct, I agree with my opponent that it is the woman’s right to choose whether or not to bear a child. When she voluntarily engages in vaginal intercourse, knowing there is a chance of pregnancy (since reproduction is the sole biological purpose of sex), she’s made her choice. -To illustrate by analogy: Jill is very sick and needs a new kidney. Jane is her sister and Jane’s kidney is a match. Jane volunteers her kidney to Jill even though the doctor informed her of potentially severe weakness she would have to endure for 6-9 months. The simple procedure goes well. One month after, the weakness hits and Jane wants her kidney back. If she gets it back, Jill dies. But, luckily, Jane made her choice already and she cannot simply take her kidney back. Jand made her bed, and now she must lie in it. 2. “the Untied states [has] no other moral obligation other [than] to uphold the constitution”-The US, being a place, cannot hold any moral obligation. If pro is speaking of the US Government, then I must ask: how is stealing property—that is, via income taxes—and using it to fund elective abortions upholding the Constitution? [1]3. “id like you all to refer to roe vs. wade”…“i would like to point you to roe vs. wade”… “Dude! Read the thing”… “Roe vs. Wade biggest one please look at it”-If Pro would kindly demonstrate the argument used by Roe vs. Wade, it would be appreciated, as it seems this is the foundation of Pro’s case. -What makes Roe vs. Wade set in stone?B. On Safety1. “I don"t see how this is a slippery slop”- My opponent’s slippery slope argument:i. If abortion is made illegal, then more unwanted babiesii. Unwanted babies leads to bad thingsTherefor: iii. Abortion should be legal- The problem with this slippery slope (a logical fallacy), is that the consequences aren’t known. The conclusion goes unproven because the argument’s first premise is false [2].2. “lets just look at the tim period when aortic [I think pro meant 'abortion'] was illegal the consequences were absolutely horrific”- Though there could be correlation, there is no proof of causation. Also, what time period is in reference? And what are these horrific consequences?2. “its about death of an actual hymn life not an embryo which as we have established is not a human life”- If an embryo is not a human life, then what is it? A nonhuman life form? A frog life perhaps? Or is it not life at all? Like a rock?C. On Equality1. “woman will still want abortions/ need abortions but do them in less safe environments hence causing more abortion related deaths”- Again, this is much like the slippery slope logical fallacy [2] explained earlier, but I will refute this in another way.- “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws” [3]. Of course, there will always be lawbreakers. This does not, however, support the conclusion that there should not be a law in the first place. - The same slippery slope fallacy would apply to drugs—if drugs are illegal then people who still want drugs must do them in unsafe environments, “causing” more drug-related death. Does that mean drugs should be legal and easily accessible? So that drug addicts can carry on safely? This could apply to a number of laws; the conclusion is unrelated to the premise which, again, is based on flimsy predictions. II) ArgumentsA. Personhood1. If the thing is not a human being, then again, is it a frog being? Or a human that is not being? *Being: the quality or state of having existence [0].2. If personhood is based on “being an individual,” or “feelings,” then severe coma patients—brain dead or persisted vegetative state—are not persons and they can be used or disposed of however a doctor feels economically beneficial. However, taking advantage of the organs of a non-donor is illegal because the patients are still protected as persons. Thus, with such criteria, there is inconsistency in declaring the unborn as nonpersons. 3. Also, just because brainwaves have not been recorded earlier than 40 days [4], does not mean that a fetus does not feel at earlier stages. This, like viability, is unsound logic because it is based on current technology. i. For example: 50 years ago, perhaps viability was at 8 months. In 2011, a 5 month old premie survived [5]. It could be that 50 years from now, technology would be able to support 2 month old premies and so on. B. The thing is a person1. “It isn"t a person... literally look at any dictionary, science site, THE CONSTITUTION it will tell you it is not in fact a person no if ands or buts about it.”- Roe vs. Wade was a significant case, but in fact there are “if ands or buts about it.” - “Processes through which personhood is recognized vary cross-culturally, demonstrating that notions of personhood are not universal” [6].2. “After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. It is no longer a matter of taste or opinion…it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception” -Dr. Jerome Lejeune, “Father of Modern Genetics” [8].3. Therefor, the thing is a person protected by the 14th amendment's clear words: "…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property…"C. The thing is not a person1. "the "thing" (embryo, fetus) isn"t actually in any shape to become a person at any near point"- Considering a healthy thing has the same amount of chromosomes as nearly every other human being, it has every shape necessary to grow to adulthood. 2. "you aren"t actually stealing power or preventing any due happiness and let me just reiterate DUE happiness its not just a random persons its a full person"-Is preventing a human life from becoming an adult not "preventing any due happiness"? -So the thing is "just a random person"? Or a half person rather than full?3. “[we’re] talking about if you enslave people or kill LIVING people”- If a thing is not living, then it could not be killed and there would be no debate. 4. The point stands: legal abortion makes the "blessings of liberty" insecure to "our porsterity," an act specifically frowned upon by the preamble of the constitution. D. Benefits1. Abolishing abortion encourages safer sex practices.2. Abolishing abortion encourages personal responsibility for one’s choices.3. Abolishing abortion in the United States protects nearly 3,000 human lives/beings per day [7].III) ConclusionUltimately, Roe vs. Wade is an exhausted case. Legal abortion costs the US over a million human lives every year [7] and the benefits of protecting those lives (by making elective abortions a crime) is incalculable.**Thank's to the readers for sticking with this debate, please don't abort on it!**Looking forward.[0] Merriam Webster[1] http://www.heritage.org...[2] http://www.logicalfallacies.info...[3] Plato[4] http://www.abortionmyths.ca...[5] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] http://www.guttmacher.org...[8] http://www.personhoodusa.com...;